Stauff I, Derman Shm, Barbe A G, Hoefer K C, Bizhang M, Zimmer S, Noack M J
Department of Operative Dentistry and Periodontology, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.
Department of Operative and Preventive Dentistry, Witten/Herdecke University, Witten, Germany.
Int J Dent Hyg. 2018 May;16(2):e31-e37. doi: 10.1111/idh.12292. Epub 2017 May 24.
To compare in a randomized clinical trial the efficacy of a high-velocity microdroplet device for interdental cleaning vs dental floss at reducing plaque and gingivitis.
Sixty participants with an irregular interdental home cleaning regime were randomly assigned to use either a microdroplet device (n=40, test) or dental floss (n=20, control) for 4 weeks. At baseline and reassessment, the papilla bleeding index, the modified proximal plaque index and the amount of gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) were recorded. At the second appointment, participants completed a questionnaire regarding their assigned interdental cleaning option. The process quality of this investigator-initiated trial was ensured by independent scientific observers and media representatives.
Improvement in the interdental cleaning routine reduced gingivitis in both groups (P<.05). The microdroplet device was more effective at reducing plaque (P=.003). The GCF amount remained the same in both groups. Comfort of use was greater with the microdroplet device. However, self-reported effectiveness was superior with dental floss. About 85% of participants using the microdroplet device said they would continue daily use.
Improving the interdental cleaning routine with the microdroplet device or dental floss reduced gingivitis and plaque in both groups. Acceptance regarding comfort of use was higher with the microdroplet device. Dental floss remained the first choice for narrow interdental spaces, yet the microdroplet device offers an effective and well-accepted alternative for patients who fail the proper flossing routine.
在一项随机临床试验中比较高速微滴装置与牙线在减少牙菌斑和牙龈炎方面的洁牙效果。
60名家庭牙间隙清洁方式不规律的参与者被随机分配，分别使用微滴装置（n = 40，试验组）或牙线（n = 20，对照组），为期4周。在基线和重新评估时，记录龈乳头出血指数、改良邻面菌斑指数和龈沟液（GCF）量。在第二次就诊时，参与者完成了一份关于其指定牙间隙清洁方法的问卷。该研究者发起的试验的过程质量由独立的科学观察员和媒体代表确保。
牙间隙清洁程序的改善使两组的牙龈炎均有所减轻（P <.05）。微滴装置在减少牙菌斑方面更有效（P =.003）。两组的龈沟液量保持不变。微滴装置的使用舒适度更高。然而，自我报告的效果牙线更佳。使用微滴装置的参与者中约85%表示会继续每日使用。
使用微滴装置或牙线改善牙间隙清洁程序可减轻两组的牙龈炎和牙菌斑。微滴装置在使用舒适度方面的接受度更高。对于牙间隙狭窄的情况，牙线仍是首选，但对于未能正确使用牙线的患者，微滴装置提供了一种有效且被广泛接受的替代方法。
