Department of Prosthodontics and Biomaterials, RWTH University, Aachen, Germany.
Department of Medical Informatics, Division of Image and Data Management, RWTH University, Aachen, Germany.
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2019 Jul;30(7):627-636. doi: 10.1111/clr.13448. Epub 2019 May 11.
To compare the removal of simulated biofilm at two different implant-supported restoration designs with various interproximal oral hygiene aids.
Mandibular models with a missing first molar were fabricated and provided with single implant analogues (centrally or distally placed) and two different crown designs (conventional [CCD] and alternative crown design [ACD]). Occlusion spray was applied to the crowns to simulate artificial biofilm. Thirty participants (dentists, dental hygienists, and laypersons) were equally divided and asked to clean the interproximal areas with five different cleaning devices to further evaluate if there were differences in their cleaning ability. The outcome was measured via standardized photos and the cleaning ratio, representing the cleaned surfaces in relation to the respective crown surface. Statistical analysis was performed by linear mixed-effects model with fixed effects for cleaning tools, surfaces, crown design and type of participant, and random effects for crowns.
The mean cleaning ratio for the investigated tools and crown designs were (in%): Super floss: 76 ± 13/ACD and 57 ± 14/CCD (highest cleaning efficiency), followed by dental floss: 66 ± 13/ACD and 56 ± 15/CCD, interdental brush: 55 ± 10/ACD and 45 ± 9/CCD, electric interspace brush: 31 ± 10/ACD and 30 ± 1/CCD, microdroplet floss: 8 ± 9/ACD and 9 ± 8/CCD. There was evidence of an overall effect of each factor "cleaning tool," "surface," "crown design," and "participant" (p < 0.0001).
ACD allowed more removal of the artificial biofilm than CCD with Super floss, dental floss, and interdental brush. Flossing and interproximal brushing were the most effective cleaning methods. A complete removal of the artificial biofilm could not be achieved in any group.
比较两种不同种植体支持修复设计与各种邻间口腔卫生辅助工具对模拟生物膜的清除效果。
制作下颌模型,缺失第一磨牙,植入单个种植体模拟物(中央或远中放置)和两种不同的冠设计(常规[CCD]和替代冠设计[ACD])。在冠上应用咬合喷雾模拟人工生物膜。将 30 名参与者(牙医、牙科保健师和非专业人士)平均分为五组,要求他们使用五种不同的清洁器械清洁邻间区域,以进一步评估它们的清洁能力是否存在差异。通过标准化照片和清洁率(代表相对于各自冠面的清洁表面)来衡量结果。统计分析采用线性混合效应模型,固定效应为清洁工具、表面、冠设计和参与者类型,随机效应为冠。
在所研究的工具和冠设计中,平均清洁率为(%):超级牙线:76±13/ACD 和 57±14/CCD(清洁效率最高),其次是牙线:66±13/ACD 和 56±15/CCD,牙间刷:55±10/ACD 和 45±9/CCD,电动间隙刷:31±10/ACD 和 30±1/CCD,微滴牙线:8±9/ACD 和 9±8/CCD。“清洁工具”、“表面”、“冠设计”和“参与者”每个因素的总体效果均有证据(p<0.0001)。
ACD 比 CCD 更能清除人工生物膜,而 Super floss、牙线和牙间刷是最有效的清洁方法。任何一组都无法完全清除人工生物膜。