The use of interdental brushes or oral irrigators as adjuvants to conventional oral hygiene associated with recurrence of periodontitis in periodontal maintenance therapy: A 6‐year prospective study

Oral Irrigation Devices: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVES

Self-performed oral hygiene is essential for preventing dental caries, periodontal, and peri-implant diseases. Oral irrigators are adjunctive oral home care aids that may benefit oral health. However, the effects of oral irrigation on oral health, its role in oral home care, and its mechanism of action are not fully understood. A comprehensive search of the literature revealed no existing broad scoping reviews on oral irrigators. Therefore, this study aimed to provide a comprehensive systematic review of the literature on oral irrigation devices and identify evidence gaps.

METHODS

The Joanna Briggs Institute and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines were utilized to prepare the review. Four databases and eight gray literature sources were searched for English publications across any geographical location or setting.

RESULTS

Two hundred and seventy-five sources were included, predominantly from scientific journals and academic settings. Most studies originated from North America. Research primarily involved adults, with limited studies in children and adolescents. Oral irrigation was safe and well-accepted when used appropriately. It reduced periodontal inflammation, potentially by modulating the oral microbiota, but further research needs to clarify its mechanism of action. Promising results were reported in populations with dental implants and special needs. Patient acceptance appeared high, but standardized patient-reported outcome measures were rarely used. Anti-inflammatory benefits occurred consistently across populations and irrigant solutions. Plaque reduction findings were mixed, potentially reflecting differences in study designs and devices.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral irrigators reduce periodontal inflammation, but their impact on plaque removal remains unclear. Well-designed, sufficiently powered trials of appropriate duration need to assess the clinical, microbiological, and inflammatory responses of the periodontium to oral irrigation, particularly those with periodontitis, dental implants, and special needs. Patient-reported outcome measures, costs, caries prevention, and environmental impact of oral irrigation need to be compared to other oral hygiene aids.

Effects of water flossing on gingival inflammation and supragingival plaque microbiota: a 12-week randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

The effects of water flossing on dental plaque removal have been suggested, but its ecological impact on dental plaque microbiota needs further investigation. In addition, whether this plaque control measure by water flossing promotes the control of halitosis still needs clinical validation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of water flossing on gingival inflammation and supragingival plaque microbiota.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seventy participants with gingivitis were randomly assigned to control (toothbrushing) and experimental (toothbrushing + water flossing) groups (n = 35). Participants were recalled at 4, 8, and 12 weeks, and their gingival index, sulcus bleeding index, bleeding on probing, dental plaque index, and oral malodor values were measured. The microbiota of supragingival plaque was further investigated using 16S rRNA sequencing and qPCR.

RESULTS

Sixty-three participants completed all revisits (control: n = 33; experimental: n = 30). The experimental and control groups exhibited similar clinical characteristics and dental plaque microbiota at baseline. Adjunctive water flossing effectively reduced the gingival index and sulcus bleeding index as compared to the toothbrushing control group. The water-flossing group showed reduced oral malodor at week 12 as compared to the baseline. Consistently, the water-flossing group exhibited altered dental plaque microbiota at week 12, characterized by a depletion of Prevotella at genus level and Prevotella intermedia at species level as compared to the toothbrushing control. In addition, the plaque microbiota of water-flossing group exhibited a more aerobic phenotype, while the control group was more anaerobic.

CONCLUSIONS

Daily water flossing can effectively alleviate gingival inflammation and reduce oral malodor, possibly by depleting oral anaerobes and altering the oral microbiota to a more aerobic phenotype.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Water flossing adjunctive to toothbrushing effectively alleviated gingival inflammation, representing a promising oral hygiene practice to promote oral health.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ( http://www.chictr.org.cn/showprojen.aspx?proj=61797 , #ChiCTR2000038508) on September 23, 2020.

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.

Digital imaging and qPCR analysis and comparison of short-term plaque removal effects of tooth brushing

Purpose

Digital image technology and a real-time fluorescent quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RQ-PCR) were used to determine the changes in dental plaque caused by different toothbrushing tools.

Methods

A total of 120 subjects were selected and divided into four groups: a manual toothbrush group, a manual toothbrush combined with an oral irrigator group, an electric toothbrush combined with an oral irrigator group, and an electric toothbrush group. We compared the changes in plaque count, plaque area, and colony colonization of the four groups after different cleaning tools had been used for a period of time.

Results

Dental plaque count and plaque area decreased in all four groups. The decreases in plaque count and Streptococcus mutans in the electric toothbrush combined with an oral irrigator group were significantly higher than those in other groups.

Conclusion

Electric toothbrush combined with an oral irrigator shows a good result for plaque removal effect. Digital image analysis combined with biological methods can be used to evaluate dental plaque.

Effect of interproximal home oral hygiene on clinical parameters and inflammatory biomarkers in patients receiving periodontal maintenance

BACKGROUND

The purpose of this 6-week, single-blinded, randomized clinical trial was to determine if the use of an interproximal brush, with or without a tracking device, is more effective than an oral irrigator in improving interproximal probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), bleeding on probing (BOP), and inflammatory markers.

METHODS

Seventy-six patients with Stages III-IV, Grade B periodontitis and a 5-7 mm posterior interproximal PD with BOP were randomized: (1) interproximal brush alone (IB; n = 26), (2) interproximal brush with tracking device (TD; n = 23), (3) oral irrigator (OI; n = 27). Participants used devices once daily for 6 weeks. Clinical measurements (PD, CAL, PI, BOP, GI) and gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) samples were collected at baseline and 6 weeks.

RESULTS

All groups showed a significant reduction in PD and CAL (≥1.1 mm, p < 0.0001) and improvement in BOP (≥56%, p < 0.0001) and GI (≥82%, p < 0.001) at the experimental site with no differences among groups. The IB and IB+TD groups showed a significant reduction in PI (≥0.9, p ≤ 0.01). Interleukin (IL)-1β was reduced in all groups (p = 0.006), but IB+TB more than OI (p ≤ 0.05). IL-10 was reduced among all groups (p = 0.01), while interferon-gamma significantly increased (p = 0.01) in all groups.

CONCLUSIONS

IB and OI improved clinical parameters of PD and CAL and reduced inflammatory markers (BOP, GI, GCF IL-1β). IB had better interproximal plaque reduction. Tracking did not significantly improve clinical parameters compared with the IB and OI groups, suggesting future modifications are needed.

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.

Effect of supragingival plaque control on recurrent periodontitis and clinical stability among individuals under periodontal maintenance therapy: 10-year follow-up

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of supragingival plaque control on the recurrence of periodontitis (RP) and the achievement of a stable periodontal clinical endpoint after 10 years of periodontal maintenance therapy (PMT).

METHODS

The present retrospective cohort study included 225 individuals in continuous PMT. The plaque index (PI) determining the oral hygiene (OH) status, periodontal clinical parameters, and other variables of interest were collected at three time points: T1 (prior to active periodontal therapy [APT]), T2 (after APT), and T3 (10 years after T2). According to PI records at T3, participants were categorized into: (1) good OH (GOH; PI ≤ 30%, n = 63); (2) fair OH (FOH; PI > 30% and ≤40%, n = 73); and (3) poor OH (POH; PI > 40%, n = 88). Data were analyzed using the chi-square and Student t tests, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and mediation and regression analyses.

RESULTS

Significant differences in all periodontal clinical parameters between the GOH, FOH, and POH groups were observed at T3. The POH group exhibited higher mean bleeding on probing (BOP), periodontal probing depth (PD), and clinical attachment level (CAL), as well as higher tooth loss (POH > FOH > GOH; P < .001). There was an increased risk for RP in the FOH (odds ratio [OR] 2.02; CI, 1.10-4.38) and POH (OR 4.33; CI, 2.17-8.65) groups. Moreover, the FOH and POH groups had an approximately 2.5 and 6.0 times greater chance of not achieving a stable periodontal clinical endpoint, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

After 10 years of monitoring in PMT, individuals with higher PI scores (>30%) presented an unhealthier periodontal status, a higher risk for RP, and a lower chance of achieving ≤4 sites with PD ≥ 5 mm.

The impact of a "successfully treated stable periodontitis patient status" on patient-related outcome parameters during long-term supportive periodontal care

AIM

To assess the importance of achieving a successfully treated stable periodontitis patient status (PPS) during long-term supportive periodontal care (SPC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This retrospective cohort study included 100 periodontitis patients, who continued for ≥7.5 years after active periodontal treatment with SPC and were judged as overall adherent. The effect of various predictors on three patient-related outcome parameters was assessed: (1) number of diseased teeth at last SPC, (2) number of teeth lost due to periodontitis, and (3) number of teeth lost due to any reason.

RESULTS

One-fifth of the patients were classified as stable after active periodontal treatment. After a mean follow-up of 10.77 years, 24 patients lost 38 teeth due to periodontitis. An unstable PPS and a higher number of diseased teeth per patient at first SPC, and inadequate oral hygiene levels over time, significantly increased the risk for a higher number of diseased teeth per patient at last SPC and for more lost teeth due to periodontitis. However, high adherence to SPC appeared to mitigate the negative effect of an unstable PPS, especially regarding tooth loss due to periodontitis. Further, tooth loss due to any reason was about 3 times higher than tooth loss due to periodontitis and was affected by a larger number of predictors.

CONCLUSIONS

Successfully treated patients with a stable PPS maintained a small number of diseased teeth and barely lost any teeth during long-term SPC compared to patients who did not achieve a stable PPS after active periodontal therapy.

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

Objectives

To assess patients' opinion on the use of 2 generations of power‐driven water flossers and their impact on gingival inflammation.

Material & Methods

In the present prospective cohort study 24 periodontitis patients under regular supportive periodontal therapy used daily 2 generations of a power‐driven water flosser (Sonicare AirFloss [SAF] and Sonicare AirFloss Ultra [SAFU]) for 12 weeks each. Patients were instructed to position the nozzle interproximally from the buccal aspect at each interproximal space. Patients' opinion was assessed by a questionnaire and interproximal bleeding on probing (BoP) was recorded.

Results

Overall satisfaction with SAF/SAFU was rated high, by about 80% of the patients. About 66% of the patients preferred SAF/SAFU compared to their previous interdental cleaning device and indicated that they would continue using SAF/SAFU after the study; none of the patients reported any discomfort or pain. Compared to only tooth brushing, daily use of SAF/SAFU caused a significant reduction of interproximal BoP values, which were well maintained over 6 months; that is, BoP at interproximal buccal and oral sites (pooled), as well as at interproximal buccal and oral sites separately, was proportionately reduced by 29.1%, 41.2%, and 24.8%, respectively (pooled: p = 0.027; buccal sites: p = 0.030; oral sites: p = 0.030).

Conclusion

Patients were very fond of the power‐driven water flossers tested herein, and daily use of the devices for 6 months (i.e., each device was used for 3 months) resulted in a significant reduction of gingival inflammation interproximally.

Effect of interdental brush design on plaque during nonsurgical periodontal therapy

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to evaluate the interproximal cleaning efficacy of waist-shaped compared with straight soft interdental brushes in patients undergoing nonsurgical periodontal therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ten patients diagnosed with periodontitis stage II or III were scheduled for nonsurgical periodontal therapy. Baseline plaque control record (PCR), modified approximal plaque index (API), papillary bleeding index (PBI), probing pocket depth (PPD), and bleeding on probing (BOP) were evaluated. Four interdental spaces of equal sizes were determined, and baseline plaque indices (PI) were assessed on eight surfaces of the respective adjacent teeth, resulting in 640 measuring positions. Interdental brushes with a straight or waist-shaped design were randomly allocated to the right or left side, and patients received oral hygiene instructions. Follow-up measurements including PCR, API, PBI, and site-specific PI were performed during initial nonsurgical periodontal therapy sessions and reevaluation which was undertaken 8 weeks afterwards.

RESULTS

PCR, API, and PBI decreased significantly compared with baseline at each time point (p < 0.001). PPD (waist-shaped, baseline 4 mm (range, 2-9 mm) vs. reevaluation 3 mm (range, 1-6 mm); p < 0.001; straight, baseline 4 mm (range, 2-10) vs. reevaluation 3 mm (range, 1-6) mm; p < 0.001) and BOP (p = 0.008) showed significant reduction in both groups. Sub-analysis of site-specific areas including line angles and interproximal areas revealed no significant reduction of plaque during the observation period between both brush designs. No difference between straight and waist-shaped brushes regarding PPD or BOP decrease was found.

CONCLUSION

The efficacy of both interdental brush designs concerning plaque control in patients undergoing nonsurgical periodontal therapy was similar.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The use of interdental brushes is essential for biofilm removal in patients during initial periodontal therapy, regardless of brush design.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTNregistry (#ISRCTN24498365), http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN24498365.

Incorporating Oral Health Considerations for Medication Management in Care Transitions

Transitions of care involve multifaceted considerations for patients, which can pose significant challenges if factors like oral health are overlooked when evaluating medication management. This article examines how oral health factors should be considered in medication management of patients who may be at risk for hospital readmission. This article also explores successes and challenges of a pharmacy consult service integrated into a dental clinic practice, and the opportunities within that setting to improve overall patient outcomes including those related to care transitions.