Schmidt Bastian, Jentsch Holger
Oral Health Prev Dent. 2015;13(3):205-11. doi: 10.3290/j.ohpd.a32680.
To determine whether mechanical cleaning with interdental brushes combined with the use of cetylpyridinium chloride (0.3% CPC) gel was more effective at plaque control than mechanical cleaning with interdental brushes alone.
Forty individuals (30-70 years old) with at least 20 teeth and moderate chronic periodontitis who had no experience with interdental cleaning aids were randomly assigned to a treatment group (brush + gel, n = 20) or a control group (brush, n = 20). Both groups were examined by a dentist at baseline and at 3 and 6 months for changes in interdental plaque (interproximal plaque index [API]) levels, gingival inflammation (sulcus bleeding index [SBI]), probing depth (PD) and bleeding on probing (BOP).
No baseline differences in age, gender or number of teeth were observed between the two groups. During the study period, improvements in API and BOP were comparable between groups. However, improvements in SBI and PD were significantly greater in the test group than in the control group (p = 0.046 and p = 0.029, respectively).
Mechanical interdental plaque control using interdental brushes combined with the use of CPC gel significantly improved 6-month gingival and periodontal outcomes (SBI and PD) compared with mechanical cleaning with interdental brushes alone.
确定使用牙间隙刷进行机械清洁并联合使用氯化十六烷基吡啶(0.3% CPC)凝胶在控制牙菌斑方面是否比单独使用牙间隙刷进行机械清洁更有效。
40名年龄在30 - 70岁之间、至少有20颗牙齿且患有中度慢性牙周炎且未曾使用过牙间隙清洁辅助工具的个体被随机分为治疗组(牙间隙刷 + 凝胶,n = 20)或对照组(牙间隙刷,n = 20)。两组在基线时、3个月和6个月时均由牙医检查牙间隙菌斑(邻面菌斑指数[API])水平、牙龈炎症(龈沟出血指数[SBI])、探诊深度(PD)和探诊出血(BOP)的变化。
两组在年龄、性别或牙齿数量方面未观察到基线差异。在研究期间,两组间API和BOP的改善情况相当。然而,试验组SBI和PD的改善明显大于对照组(分别为p = 0.046和p = 0.029)。
与单独使用牙间隙刷进行机械清洁相比,使用牙间隙刷进行机械性牙间隙菌斑控制并联合使用CPC凝胶可显著改善6个月时的牙龈和牙周状况(SBI和PD)。