Suppr超能文献

比较牙间刷和硅胶涂层牙间牙签的临床疗效和患者接受度:一项随机分口、前瞻性临床试验。

Comparison of clinical efficacy and patient acceptance of interdental brush and silicone coated interdental pick: a randomized split-mouth, prospective clinical trial.

机构信息

Department of Periodontology, Bolu Abant Izzet Baysal University, Bolu, Turkey.

Department of Periodontology, Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University, Çanakkale, Turkey.

出版信息

Clin Oral Investig. 2020 Jun;24(6):2121-2127. doi: 10.1007/s00784-020-03293-6. Epub 2020 May 19.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this split-mouth, prospective controlled study was to compare the effects of two different interdental devices on clinical plaque elimination, gingival bleeding and patient acceptance and comfort.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Thirty participants who had been diagnosed with gingivitis were included in the study. After professional oral prophylaxis and a 3-day washout period, patients were advised to use two test devices (TePe Interdental Brushes Original and TePe EasyPick™, Malmö, Sweden) according to instructions. The plaque index (Turesky modification of the Quigley and Hein Index) and bleeding index (Papillary Bleeding Index) were recorded at baseline and after 2 weeks. Patient satisfaction and comfort were assessed with a questionnaire.

RESULTS

Both of the tested devices improved the plaque and bleeding index scores. There were no differences between the two sides in terms of time-dependent changes. The patients felt more satisfied with the cleansing capacity and more comfortable with the use of SCIP compared with IDB (p = 0.001). Pain sensation with the use of SCIP was significantly lower than with IDB (p = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

The clinical efficiency of the tested interdental devices was similar in terms of removing plaque and decreasing bleeding. However, SCIP were found to be more comfortable and preferable to IDB.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The silicone coated interdental picks showed similar effects on plaque removal as interdental brushes and superiority in terms of ease to use than interdental brushes.

摘要

目的

本研究采用分口、前瞻性对照研究,旨在比较两种不同的牙间清洁工具对临床牙菌斑清除、牙龈出血和患者接受度和舒适度的影响。

材料和方法

本研究纳入 30 名被诊断为牙龈炎的患者。在进行专业口腔洁治和 3 天的洗脱期后,患者按照说明书使用两种测试设备(特浦牙间刷 Original 和特浦易洁牙线棒,瑞典马尔默)。基线和 2 周后,分别记录菌斑指数(改良后的 Quigley-Hein 指数)和出血指数(牙龈乳头出血指数)。使用问卷评估患者的满意度和舒适度。

结果

两种测试设备均能改善菌斑和出血指数评分。两种牙间清洁工具在时间依赖性变化方面无差异。与牙间刷相比,患者对 SCIP 的清洁能力和使用舒适度更满意(p = 0.001)。使用 SCIP 时的疼痛感觉明显低于牙间刷(p = 0.002)。

结论

两种牙间清洁工具在清除菌斑和减少出血方面的临床效果相似,但 SCIP 在使用舒适度方面优于牙间刷。

临床相关性

与牙间刷相比,硅涂层牙间清洁线在清除牙菌斑方面效果相似,但在使用方便性方面具有优势。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验