Suppr超能文献

一项为期 6 周家庭使用后评估不同口腔清洁方式对牙龈炎和菌斑影响的随机、平行设计研究。

A Randomized, Parallel Design Study to Evaluate the Effects of Different Oral Cleaning Modalities on Gingivitis and Plaque After a 6-Week Period of Home Use.

机构信息

Senior Clinical Development Scientist, Philips Oral Healthcare, Bothell, Washington.

Senior Clinical Development Scientist and Medical-Dental Safety Officer, Philips Oral Healthcare, Bothell, Washington.

出版信息

Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2024 Mar;45(Suppl 1):6-9.

Abstract

The study objective was to evaluate the effect of different interdental oral cleaning modalities on gingivitis and plaque following a 6-week period of home use. This was a randomized, parallel, examiner-blinded study. Study subjects were routine manual toothbrush (MTB) users with moderate to severe gingivitis, aged 18 to 65 years. Subjects were required to have a gingival bleeding score of ≥1 on at least 50 gingival sites per the Gingival Bleeding Index (GBI) and to have a minimum average plaque score of ≥0.6 per the Rustogi Modified Navy Plaque Index (RMNPI) following a 3- to 6-hour plaque accumulation period. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of four groups based on the oral care cleaning modality: (1) NON group: MTB alone, (2) FLS group: MTB plus string floss, (3) MPF group: MTB plus a Philips® Sonicare® Power Flosser with the Quad Stream nozzle, or (4) PPF group: Philips Sonicare power toothbrush plus the power flosser. Safety and efficacy measures (Modified Gingival Index [MGI], GBI, and RMNPI) were assessed at baseline, 2 weeks, and 6 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the reduction in gingival inflammation from baseline to week 6 as measured by the MGI. A total of 260 subjects were randomized and 256 subjects completed the study. The adjusted mean percent reduction in gingival inflammation from baseline to week 6 was 14.90% for the NON group, 13.16% for the FLS group, 33.51% for the MPF group, and 49.30% for the PPF group. Pairwise comparisons indicated that both the PPF and MPF groups were statistically significantly different from both the NON and FLS groups. In conclusion, use of either the Philips Sonicare power toothbrush with the Philips Sonicare Power Flosser or an MTB with the Philips Sonicare Power Flosser was statistically superior to an MTB alone and an MTB used with string floss in reducing gingival inflammation following 6 weeks of home use.

摘要

本研究旨在评估 6 周家庭使用后,不同的牙间口腔清洁方式对牙龈炎和菌斑的影响。这是一项随机、平行、 examiner-blinded 研究。研究对象为常规手动牙刷(MTB)使用者,有中至重度牙龈炎,年龄 18 至 65 岁。受试者需符合以下标准:根据牙龈出血指数(GBI),至少 50 个牙龈部位的牙龈出血评分≥1;根据 Rustogi 改良海军菌斑指数(RMNPI),在 3 至 6 小时菌斑积累后,平均菌斑评分≥0.6。受试者根据口腔护理清洁方式随机分为四组:(1)NON 组:仅使用 MTB,(2)FLS 组:MTB 加牙线,(3)MPF 组:MTB 加 Philips® Sonicare® Power Flosser 带 Quad Stream 喷嘴,或(4)PPF 组:Philips Sonicare 电动牙刷加电动牙线。在基线、2 周和 6 周时评估安全性和疗效测量(改良牙龈指数[MGI]、GBI 和 RMNPI)。主要疗效终点是通过 MGI 测量从基线到第 6 周时牙龈炎症的减少。共有 260 名受试者被随机分组,256 名受试者完成了研究。从基线到第 6 周,NON 组的牙龈炎症平均减少 14.90%,FLS 组减少 13.16%,MPF 组减少 33.51%,PPF 组减少 49.30%。两两比较表明,PPF 和 MPF 组与 NON 和 FLS 组均有统计学差异。总之,与单独使用 MTB 或 MTB 加牙线相比,使用飞利浦 Sonicare 电动牙刷加飞利浦 Sonicare Power Flosser 或 MTB 加飞利浦 Sonicare Power Flosser 在 6 周家庭使用后,在减少牙龈炎症方面具有统计学优势。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验