Çelebi Elif, Öçbe Melisa, Sinanoğlu Enver Alper, Tekkeşin Merva Soluk
Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Bahcesehir University, Gayrettepe, Barbaros Blv. No:153, 34357, Istanbul, Turkey.
Faculty of Dentistry, Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Radiology, Kocaeli Health and Technology University, Kocaeli, Turkey.
BMC Oral Health. 2025 May 29;25(1):842. doi: 10.1186/s12903-025-06221-w.
With the renewed interest in brush biopsies, particularly for screening oral potentially malignant disorders and cancers, understanding the efficacy of available brush types in oral cytology is crucial. This study aims to compare the effectiveness of interdental brush sampling with commonly used cytology brushes in oral cytology evaluation.
The study design was an observational clinical study. Brush biopsies were collected from the buccal mucosa of 99 healthy volunteers using an Interdental Brush- TePe Original Interdental Brush (TePe, Malmö, Sweden) (Cell sampling-Interdental Brush (CSIB)), Cytobrush Plus GT (Medscand Medical AB, Sweden) (Cell sampling device 1 (CSD1)), and CervexBrush (Rovers, Oss, Netherlands) (Cell sampling device 2 (CSD2)). Samples were evaluated for cellularity, depth of the epithelial layer, and cellular integrity. Results were compared between brush types using the Friedman test, and multiple comparisons were examined using the Dunn test. The significance level was set at p < 0.05.
Of the 99 cases, 59.6% were female and 40.4% were male, with a prevalence of smoking and alcohol consumption at 43.4%. The mean age was 24.3 years (± 4.5). There were no significant differences in cellularity between the brush types (p = 0.205). Mild cellularity was observed at rates of 3%, 9.1%, and 9.1% for CSD1, CSIB, and CSD2, respectively. Parabasal/basal layer cells were detected in 1% of samples collected with CSD1 and 4% with CSD2, while CSIB samples contained only superficial/intermediate cells. CSIB produced an inadequate integrity rate of 30.3%, whereas neither CSD2 nor CSD1 yielded samples with inadequate integrity.
Interdental brushes may have potential as accessible and practical tools for chairside cytological screening. The CSIB obtained high-cellularity samples; however, it demonstrated low scores in cellular integrity. Future oral cytological studies may explore the modifications in interdental brush design to improve its potential in sampling for cell preservation and integrity.
随着人们对刷检活检重新产生兴趣，尤其是用于筛查口腔潜在恶性疾病和癌症，了解现有刷检类型在口腔细胞学中的效果至关重要。本研究旨在比较牙间隙刷采样与常用细胞学刷在口腔细胞学评估中的有效性。
本研究设计为一项观察性临床研究。使用牙间隙刷（瑞典马尔默的TePe原装牙间隙刷）（细胞采样牙间隙刷（CSIB））、Cytobrush Plus GT（瑞典Medscand Medical AB公司）（细胞采样装置1（CSD1））和CervexBrush（荷兰奥斯特的Rovers公司）（细胞采样装置2（CSD2））从99名健康志愿者的颊黏膜采集刷检活检样本。对样本进行细胞数量、上皮层深度和细胞完整性评估。使用Friedman检验比较不同刷检类型的结果，并使用Dunn检验进行多重比较。显著性水平设定为p < 0.05。
99例中，59.6%为女性，40.4%为男性，吸烟和饮酒患病率为43.4%。平均年龄为24.3岁（±4.5）。不同刷检类型之间的细胞数量无显著差异（p = 0.205）。CSD1、CSIB和CSD2的轻度细胞数量发生率分别为3%、9.1%和9.1%。在CSD1采集的1%样本和CSD2采集的4%样本中检测到副基底层/基底层细胞，而CSIB样本仅包含表层/中层细胞。CSIB产生的完整性不足率为30.3%，而CSD2和CSD1均未产生完整性不足的样本。
牙间隙刷可能有潜力成为便捷实用的椅旁细胞学筛查工具。CSIB获得了高细胞数量的样本；然而，其在细胞完整性方面得分较低。未来的口腔细胞学研究可探索牙间隙刷设计的改进，以提高其在细胞保存和完整性采样方面的潜力。
