Rominger Reto L, Patcas Raphael, Hamza Blend, Schätzle Marc, Wegehaupt Florian J, Hersberger-Zurfluh Monika A
Clinic of Orthodontics and Pediatric Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Plattenstrasse 11, 8032, Zurich, Switzerland.
Clinic of Conservative and Preventive Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Sci Rep. 2024 Mar 11;14(1):5921. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-56017-1.
Throughout treatment with fixed orthodontic appliances, effective plaque control is crucial to maintaining dental health. This in-vitro study evaluated the cleaning performance of eleven different brush heads of seven electric toothbrushes (oscillating-rotating and sonic motions) and varying brushing forces around orthodontic brackets. Six Mini Diamond Twin brackets were placed on black-stained front teeth. Teeth were coated with white titanium oxide and brushed in a machine six times for one minute with two different brushing forces (1 N and 1.5 N). Eleven different brush heads were evaluated (either oscillating-rotating or sonic movements). The teeth were scanned and planimetrically evaluated after brushing. Three detailed plaque areas (DPAs) were created: proximal (< 1 mm to bracket), mid-tier (1-2 mm to bracket), and distant (> 2 mm to bracket). The proportion of contaminated proximal, mid-tier, and distant surfaces (white regions) in relation to the respective DPA was calculated. Independent of brushing forces, places with a higher distance (> 2 mm) to the orthodontic bracket had the least amount of residual contamination, followed by areas with a minor (1-2 mm) and proximal distance (< 1 mm). In all of the brushes tested and for both estimated brushing forces, the region with the highest residual contamination was the proximal area. The brush heads of the Paro Sonic toothbrush left the least amount of residual contamination. The cleaning performance of electric toothbrushes around brackets on upper incisors varied across the brushes examined. The proximal area has the most residual contamination. Furthermore, 9 out of 11 toothbrushes cleaned more successfully with 1.5 N than with 1 N brushing force.
在整个固定正畸矫治器治疗过程中,有效的牙菌斑控制对于保持口腔健康至关重要。这项体外研究评估了七款电动牙刷(旋转振荡式和声波式)的11种不同刷头在正畸托槽周围的清洁性能以及不同刷牙力度的影响。在被染黑的前牙上放置六个Mini Diamond Twin托槽。牙齿表面涂上白色氧化钛,然后在机器中用两种不同的刷牙力度(1N和1.5N)各刷六次,每次一分钟。对11种不同的刷头进行了评估(旋转振荡式或声波式运动)。刷牙后对牙齿进行扫描并进行平面测量评估。创建了三个详细的菌斑区域(DPAs):近中区域(距托槽<1mm)、中间区域(距托槽1 - 2mm)和远中区域(距托槽>2mm)。计算了各个DPA中受污染的近中、中间和远中表面(白色区域)的比例。与刷牙力度无关,距正畸托槽距离较远(>2mm)的部位残留污染最少,其次是距离较小(1 - 2mm)的区域和近中区域(<1mm)。在所有测试的牙刷以及两种估计的刷牙力度下,残留污染最高的区域都是近中区域。Paro Sonic牙刷的刷头残留污染最少。在上颌切牙托槽周围,不同电动牙刷的清洁性能各不相同。近中区域的残留污染最多。此外,11支牙刷中有9支在刷牙力度为1.5N时比1N时清洁效果更好。