Department of Periodontology, Academic Center for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Scienfitic Office, Meander Medical Centre, Amersfoort, The Netherlands.
Int J Dent Hyg. 2022 Feb;20(1):26-39. doi: 10.1111/idh.12492. Epub 2021 May 29.
This study aimed to establish the efficacy of a rubber bristles interdental cleaner (RBIC) as an adjunct to toothbrushing (TB) compared to that of the adjuvant use of other interdental cleaning devices and TB alone on plaque and gingivitis parameters. Additionally, the safety aspects and panellists' appreciation were evaluated.
Databases were searched for randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating plaque (PI), bleeding (BS), and gingival index (GI) scores, safety assessments, and participants' appreciation. Extracted data were summarized in a descriptive and, if possible, a meta-analysis.
The search retrieved 142 unique papers; six studies with 10 comparisons were included in a descriptive analysis. Five RCTs compared RBICs with interdental brushes (IDBs), four with dental floss (DF) and one with manual TB only. No comparisons to wood sticks were retrieved. Using an RBIC resulted in no difference in plaque scores compared to DF and IDBs. For overall bleeding scores, no difference was found. Two studies analysing the accessible sites separately found RBICs to be more favourable than DF and IDBs. Conversely, one study evaluating the efficacy of RBICs compared to IDBs, according to the GI scores, showed that IDBs achieved significantly greater reduction. Moreover, RBICs caused fewer gingival abrasions and were preferred by the study participants.
Based on a descriptive and a meta-analysis of the available literature, it is synthesized that in gingivitis patients, a weak to very weak certainty exists that a RBIC is indicated for gingivitis and plaque reduction. The evidence supports user safety and participants' preferences.
本研究旨在评估与单独使用牙间刷（TB）相比，橡胶刷毛牙间清洁器（RBIC）作为 TB 的辅助手段在菌斑和牙龈炎参数方面的疗效。此外，还评估了安全性方面和参与者的评价。
搜索数据库以评估菌斑（PI）、出血（BS）和牙龈指数（GI）评分、安全性评估和参与者评价的随机对照临床试验（RCT）。提取的数据以描述性进行总结，如果可能，还进行了荟萃分析。
检索到 142 篇独特的论文；纳入了 6 项研究，共 10 项比较，进行了描述性分析。五项 RCT 将 RBIC 与牙间刷（IDB）进行了比较，四项与牙线（DF）进行了比较，一项与手动 TB 进行了比较。没有检索到与木制牙签的比较。与 DF 和 IDB 相比，使用 RBIC 对菌斑评分没有差异。对于总体出血评分，没有差异。两项分别分析可及部位的研究发现，RBIC 比 DF 和 IDB 更有利。相反，一项评估 RBIC 与 IDB 疗效的研究根据 GI 评分显示，IDB 显著降低。此外，RBIC 引起的牙龈磨损较少，且受到研究参与者的青睐。
根据现有文献的描述性和荟萃分析，综合认为在牙龈炎患者中，使用 RBIC 可减轻牙龈炎和菌斑的效果，其证据支持用户安全性和参与者的偏好。
