Patients' opinion on the use of 2 generations of power-driven water flossers and their impact on gingival inflammation

Self-determined use of provided powered oral hygiene devices leads to improved gingival health after 1 year: a longitudinal clinical trial

PURPOSE

Our study aimed to evaluate the long-term concordance and acceptance when using powered devices for everyday oral hygiene routine and gingival health in patients showing papillary bleeding.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Thirty-one participants were recruited at the dental clinic of the University Hospital of Cologne, Germany, over a 6-week duration. At baseline, a standard dental check-up was performed, including oral hygiene indices and documentation of oral hygiene devices used. The study consisted of two consecutive phases: the first (motivational trial) was designed to prove the effectiveness and safety of a microdroplet device and a powered toothbrush compared to dental floss and a manual toothbrush over a period of 4 weeks. The second (observational) phase began with all participants receiving the powered oral homecare devices. Participants were able to use their oral hygiene measures of choice over an unsupervised period of 1 year. All participants were then rescheduled for a routine dental check-up, where oral hygiene indices and oral hygiene devices used were reevaluated.

RESULTS

After 1 year, 93.3% of participants stated they performed interdental cleaning on a regular basis (baseline 60.0%). The percentage using a powered toothbrush increased from 41.9% (baseline) to 90.0% after 1 year. Oral hygiene parameters had improved after both the motivational trial and observational phases compared to baseline (papillary bleeding index p = .000; Rustogi Modified Navy Plaque Index p < .05; Quigley-Hein Index p = .000).

CONCLUSION

In the long term, participants preferred using powered oral hygiene devices over the gold standard dental floss and manual toothbrush. Improved oral hygiene parameters after 1 year may indicate implementation of newly acquired oral-hygiene skills during the 4-week instruction phase.

Cleansing efficacy of an oral irrigator with microburst technology in orthodontic patients-a randomized-controlled crossover study

OBJECTIVES

Orthodontic patients struggle with interdental cleaning calling for simpler mechanical devices to reduce the high plaque levels. The present study aimed to compare the cleansing efficacy of an oral irrigator with that of dental flossing in patients with fixed braces after 4 weeks of home-use.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study design is a randomized and single-blinded cross-over study. After 28 days using the products at home, hygiene indices (Rustogi Modified Navy Plaque Index (RMNPI); gingival bleeding index (GBI)) were compared between test (oral irrigator) and control product (dental floss).

RESULTS

Seventeen adult individuals finalized the study. After 28 days of cleaning with the oral irrigator, RMNPI was 54.96% (46.91-66.05) compared to 52.98% (42.75-65.60) with dental floss (p = 0.029). Subgroup analysis revealed that the higher cleansing efficacy of the dental floss is attributable to buccal and marginal areas. GBI after the test phase with the oral irrigator was 12.96% (7.14-24.31) and statistically significantly higher compared to 8.33% (5.84-15.33) with dental floss (p = 0.030) which could be seen in all subgroups.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral irrigators do not remove plaque and reduce gingival bleeding as efficiently as dental floss in easily accessible regions. However, in posterior regions, where the patients struggled with the application of dental floss, the oral irrigator showed similar results.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Oral irrigators should only be recommended to orthodontic patients who cannot use interdental brushes and are not compliant with dental flossing.

Efficacy of power-driven interdental cleaning tools: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To summarize the available evidence on the efficacy of power-driven interdental cleaning tools (PDICTs) as an adjunct to tooth brushing compared to tooth brushing alone or tooth brushing combined with any other non-PDICT in terms of interproximal plaque and gingival bleeding reduction in gingivitis patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in three databases until March 20, 2022 with the following main eligibility criteria: (1) randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) with (2) at least 28 days of follow-up in (3) gingivitis patients. Interproximal plaque and bleeding values were defined as the primary outcome variables and used for pair-wise meta-analyses.

RESULTS

Sixteen RCTs were identified including data from 1258 participants at the final evaluation. Eight studies each investigated the effect of either a liquid-based or mechanical PDICT; one of these studies tested additionally a combined liquid-based and mechanical PDICT. Tooth brushing combined with a liquid-based PDICT compared to tooth brushing alone did not result in better interproximal plaque values but in significantly lower interproximal bleeding values. Tooth brushing combined with either a liquid-based PDICT or with a mechanical PDICT compared to tooth brushing and flossing achieved comparable interproximal plaque and bleeding values. The majority of studies reporting on patient compliance/preference favored the use of a PDICT, and except for a single study, which was reporting soft tissue trauma in two subjects from improper use of a mechanical PDICT, none of the studies reported adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Daily use of PDICT as an adjunct to tooth brushing significantly reduces interproximal bleeding. This effect appears comparable to that of flossing, while PDICT may achieve higher patient acceptance/compliance.

Bacterial colonisation during regular daily use of a power-driven water flosser and risk for cross-contamination. Can it be prevented?

Objective

To assess whether bacterial colonisation in a power-driven water flosser can be prevented.

Materials and methods

Twenty-four patients undergoing supportive periodontal treatment used 2 power-driven water flossers [Sonicare AirFloss (SAF), AirFloss Ultra (SAFU)] for 12 weeks each as follows: (a) with bottled water (BW); (b) with BW and cleaning the device extra-orally twice per week with chlorhexidine gluconate or (c) essential-oil-based (EO) mouth-rinse; (d) with EO only. Water-jet samples were taken after 6 and 12 weeks with the used nozzle and after exchanging to a brand-new nozzle. After 12 weeks, all devices underwent an intensive cleaning procedure. Samples were analysed by PCR-based method for cariogenic and periodontal pathogens and culture for staphylococci, aerobe gram-negative bacteria, and Candida sp.

Results

Contamination of SAF/SAFU with Streptococcus mutans was found in > 95% of the samples; periodontal pathogens and aerobe gram-negative bacteria were detected in 19–56% of the samples, while Staphylococcus aureus and Candida sp. were identified only in few samples. Contamination rate was basically unaffected by time-point, device, or way of use. Further, exchanging the nozzle did not prevent transmission of a contaminated water-jet, but the intensive cleaning reduced most of the pathogens significantly, except of S. mutans.

Conclusion

Neither a specific way of use nor exchanging the nozzle prevented bacterial colonisation and transmission of biofilm components via the water-jet of SAF/SAFU.

Clinical relevance

Bacterial colonisation in a power-driven water flosser seems impossible to prevent; to restrict the risk of cross-contamination within a household, one device per person should be recommended.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00784-021-04167-1.