Department of Conservative and Preventive Dentistry, Dental Clinic of the Justus Liebig University, Schlangenzahl 14, 35392 Giessen, Germany.
Clin Oral Investig. 2013 Mar;17(2):659-67. doi: 10.1007/s00784-012-0744-y. Epub 2012 May 3.
Aim of this prospective, randomised, controlled clinical trial was to use the modified bass technique (MBT) and a specific brushing sequence to investigate whether two types of instruction methods lead to differences in plaque reduction and whether plaque reduction is related to technique adoption.
Ninety-eight participants were randomly assigned to three groups: (1) control, no instruction; (2) verbal instruction by means of a leaflet; and (3) verbal instruction supported by demonstration, no leaflet. Brushing performance was video monitored. Plaque score (Turesky modified QHI (T-QHI)) was measured at baseline, afterwards participants received instructions. After 2 weeks, T-QHI was measured for a second time, and participants were re-instructed. After another 2 weeks, T-QHI was measured for a third time.
At baseline, T-QHI did not differ between groups ((1) 1.99 ± 0.51, (2) 1.90 ± 0.51, (3) 1.93 ± 0.56). The second measurement revealed an improvement of T-QHI in the instructed groups and in the non-instructed control group ((1) 1.80 ± 0.47, (2) 1.58 ± 0.58, (3) 1.64 ± 0.58; n.s. between groups); in the intervention groups, remotivation achieved no further improvement ((1) 1.72 ± 0.48, (2) 1.52 ± 0.58, (3) 1.50 ± 0.69; n.s. between groups and compared to second measurement). Improvement of T-QHI was not related to proper performance of technique or brushing sequence. Those who fully adopted the brushing technique, the sequence or both did not have lower plaque scores.
Technical performance and effectiveness were not linked.
Within the study setting, the MBT was not effective in reducing plaque scores. The general recommendation of the MBT should be re-evaluated in further studies.
本前瞻性、随机、对照临床试验旨在使用改良巴斯技术（MBT）和特定的刷牙顺序，研究两种指导方法是否会导致菌斑减少的差异，以及菌斑减少是否与技术采用有关。
98 名参与者被随机分配到三组：（1）对照组，无指导；（2）通过传单进行口头指导；（3）口头指导辅以演示，无传单。刷牙表现被视频监测。基线时测量菌斑评分（Turesky 改良 QHI（T-QHI）），之后参与者接受指导。2 周后，第二次测量 T-QHI，并对参与者进行再指导。再过两周，第三次测量 T-QHI。
基线时，各组间 T-QHI 无差异（（1）1.99 ± 0.51，（2）1.90 ± 0.51，（3）1.93 ± 0.56）。第二次测量显示，指导组和非指导对照组的 T-QHI 均有所改善（（1）1.80 ± 0.47，（2）1.58 ± 0.58，（3）1.64 ± 0.58；组间无差异）；在干预组中，再激励没有进一步提高（（1）1.72 ± 0.48，（2）1.52 ± 0.58，（3）1.50 ± 0.69；组间无差异，与第二次测量相比）。T-QHI 的改善与技术或刷牙顺序的正确执行无关。那些完全采用刷牙技术、顺序或两者的人，其菌斑评分并没有降低。
技术表现和效果没有联系。
在研究环境中，MBT 不能有效降低菌斑评分。在进一步的研究中，应重新评估 MBT 的一般建议。
