Larsen H C, Slot D E, Van Zoelen C, Barendregt D S, Van der Weijden G A
Clinic for Periodontology Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
Academic Center for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam and VU University, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Int J Dent Hyg. 2017 Aug;15(3):211-218. doi: 10.1111/idh.12189. Epub 2016 Jan 11.
The purpose of this study was to compare the effectiveness of conically shaped versus cylindrically shaped interdental brushes (IDB) in patients receiving supportive periodontal therapy.
Periodontal maintenance patients volunteered to be enrolled into this randomized controlled examiner-blind parallel study. At baseline and after 3 months, plaque scores, bleeding upon pocket probing scores and probing pocket depth (PPD) were assessed. The type of IDB (conical or cylindrical) was randomly assigned to each patient and individual instruction was provided regarding the method of use and the appropriate size. Only those approximal sites that had sufficient space for the IDB were eligible, and for those sites the data were analysed separately. Analyses were performed for all eligible approximal surfaces and a sub-analysis was performed for vestibular and lingual surfaces.
In total, 51 participants attended the baseline and the 3-month clinical appointments. Overall, there was no difference between conical and cylindrical IDBs. However, the conical IDB showed significantly higher plaque and bleeding scores at the lingual approximal sites. The cause of this difference was an increase in plaque and bleeding scores compared with baseline. With respect to the PPD, no difference between the IDBs was observed.
Within the limitations of this experiment, the conical IDBs are less effective than cylindrical IDBs with respect to lingual approximal plaque removal. Thus, in patients receiving supportive periodontal therapy, the cylindrical shape should be the first choice of IDB to obtain and maintain gingival health around natural teeth.
本研究旨在比较锥形与圆柱形牙间隙刷（IDB）在接受牙周支持治疗患者中的有效性。
牙周维护患者自愿参加这项随机对照、检查者盲法的平行研究。在基线和3个月后，评估菌斑评分、探诊出血评分和探诊袋深度（PPD）。将IDB的类型（锥形或圆柱形）随机分配给每位患者，并就使用方法和合适尺寸提供个性化指导。只有那些有足够空间容纳IDB的邻面部位符合条件，且对这些部位的数据进行单独分析。对所有符合条件的邻面进行分析，并对前庭和舌面进行亚分析。
共有51名参与者参加了基线和3个月的临床检查。总体而言，锥形和圆柱形IDB之间没有差异。然而，锥形IDB在舌侧邻面部位的菌斑和出血评分显著更高。这种差异的原因是与基线相比菌斑和出血评分增加。关于PPD，未观察到IDB之间的差异。
在本实验的局限性内，就舌侧邻面菌斑清除而言，锥形IDB比圆柱形IDB效果差。因此，在接受牙周支持治疗的患者中，圆柱形IDB应作为获得和维持天然牙周围牙龈健康的首选。
