The efficacy of woodsticks on plaque and gingival inflammation: a systematic review

Effects of interdental aids on clinical periodontal indices

BACKGROUND

Removal of plaque and food particle between teeth represent interdental cleaning. Every patient's self-care program includes plaque removal efficiently and systematically. Periodontal disease, tooth decay and tooth loss may result from the absence of interdental cleaning or even an irregular and unsuccessful interdental cleaning.

AIM

The aim of the current study was to assess the effect of inter-dental aids, including dental floss and toothpicks, on gingival and plaque indices.

METHODS

A questionnaire including age, gender, education level and other information was obtained from 150 male subjects who were systemically and periodontally healthy. Clinical periodontal parameters (including plaque index and gingival index) were taken from each subject. The participants were categorized into different groups according to the use of inter-dental aids (dental floss, dental picks and without any interdental aids). The participants were divided into the toothbrush-alone group, including participants who did not use either dental floss or toothpicks; the dental floss group, including participants who used dental floss; and the toothpick group including participants who used toothpicks. Plaque and gingival indices compared among groups.

RESULTS

Statistical analysis showed that the maximum mean of Plaque index was found in the toothbrush-alone group (1.09 ± 0.43), while the lowest mean of Plaque index was found in the dental floss group (0.87 ± 0.39). Plaque index of the toothpick group was (0.99 ± 0.41) with statistically significant difference among groups (p-value = 0.04*).

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, dental floss is the most effective mean of removing interdental plaque.

Interdental cleaning aids are beneficial for oral health at 7-year follow-up: Results from the Study of Health in Pomerania (SHIP-TREND)

AIM

To estimate association between the use of interdental cleaning aids (IDAs) and type on 7-year follow-up levels of interdental plaque, interdental gingival inflammation, interdental periodontitis severity, the number of interdental sound surfaces and the number of missing teeth in a population-based cohort study.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We used 7-year follow-up data of 2224 participants from the Study of Health in Pomerania (SHIP-TREND). We applied generalized linear and ordinal logistic models, adjusting for confounding and selection bias using inverse probability treatment weighting and multiple imputation.

RESULTS

Flossers were 32% less likely to have higher interdental plaque (iPlaque) levels than non-users of IDAs (odds ratio [OR] = 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.50-0.94); flossing resulted in 5% lower means of iPlaque. Effects on interdental bleeding on probing (iBOP), mean interdental probing depths and mean interdental clinical attachment levels were direction-consistent but statistically non-significant. Interdental brushing was associated with lower follow-up levels for interdental plaque (OR = 0.73; 95% CI: 0.57-0.93) and iBOP (OR = 0.69; 95% CI: 0.53-0.89). IDAs were more effective in reducing iPlaque in participants with periodontitis, whereas iBOP reduction was more pronounced in participants with no or mild periodontitis. The analyses did not suggest that the use of IDAs affected caries. Finally, applying change score analyses, flossing reduced tooth loss incidence (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 0.71) compared with non-users of IDAs.

CONCLUSIONS

Recommending flossing and interdental brushing in dental practices represents an approach to the prevention of gingivitis and consequently periodontitis.

Comparative Evaluation of Cleaning Efficacy of Interdental Brush and Interdental Floss in Orthodontics Patients From Vidarbha Region: An Interventional Study

Background Plaque and dental caries are the primary agents causing gingival and periodontal diseases, eventually progressing into tooth loss. If oral hygiene practice is poor, plaque easily accumulates on the tooth surface, especially in interproximal areas. To maintain a good oral environment, it is mandatory to remove or at least reduce the percentage of plaque formation from the oral cavity. To achieve this, interdental aids should be used along with toothbrushes, as cleansing the teeth only with a toothbrush is not effective. Various interdental aids, like interdental brushes, floss, toothpicks, etc., are now available on the market. The objective of the current survey was to rate knowledge as well as make a comparison between the cleaning effectiveness of interdental brushes and interdental floss to determine which was better at reducing plaque accumulation and, subsequently, dental caries. The survey was accessed by measuring individual plaque and gingival index before and after using interdental cleaning aids. Methodology The objective of the survey was to evaluate and analyze the efficiency of interdental brushes and interdental floss in maintaining oral hygiene among orthodontic patients residing in the Vidarbha region. After receiving approval from the Ethical Committee DMIHER(DU)/IEC/2023/721, a study was conducted over a 30-day period, focusing on a group of 100 individuals aged between 15 and 30 years, and their assessments were analyzed. The patient was briefed about the study and asked to make use of an interdental brush and interdental floss. The gingival index and plaque index were calculated on the same patients before and after the use of the interdental brush and interdental floss to determine which was better at reducing plaque accumulation on the surface of teeth. Descriptive analysis, unpaired for intergroup comparison, and paired T-tests for intragroup comparison were used. The software used was SPSS 24.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY) and GraphPad Prism 7.0 (GraphPad Software, Inc., La Jolla, CA). Result Everyone's tooth surfaces naturally develop a thin layer of plaque biofilm, but the presence of heavy plaque deposits on teeth indicates poor dental hygiene, which can lead to various oral health issues. Failure to improve dental hygiene status can result in problems such as halitosis, gingival issues, periodontal disease, and eventually tooth loss. Dentists play a crucial role in raising awareness about these concerns among their patients and providing education on effective oral care practices, including the use of interdental aids in conjunction with toothbrushes. When comparing the effectiveness of interdental brushes and dental floss in removing plaque, interdental brushes have been found to be more efficient. They not only excel in plaque removal but also contribute to a reduction in gingival problems. The statistical analysis supports this, with a significant p-value of less than 0.01 for both the plaque index and gingival index when using interdental brushes, indicating their superior performance in maintaining oral health. Conclusion The study will help every individual improve their oral hygiene status with the help of an interdental aid and a toothbrush. This will reduce the chances of having gingival and periodontal diseases and eventually reduce the risk of tooth loss.

Health action process approach in oral health behaviour: Target interventions, constructs and groups-A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to systematically map the Health Action Process Approach (HAPA)-based interventions in dentistry in relation to the type of intervention, the target groups and the constructs of the HAPA model that are used in the study and to assess the clinical relevance of the studies.

METHODS

A search in the databases of the National Library of Medicine (MEDLINE-PubMed), PsychINFO and Cochrane-CENTRAL was conducted. A quality assessment to estimate the risk of bias and a qualitative descriptive analysis were performed. The overall gathered evidence was graded.

RESULTS

Ten randomized controlled trials and three observational studies thus in total 13 studies were included. Flossing was the targeted behaviour in ten studies. The target groups consisted of students, adolescents and dental patients. Overall, all nine HAPA constructs were used, but only one study used all HAPA constructs. Six studies presented the used behavioural change techniques according to the BCT taxonomy. Based on the number of the used constructs, only two studies were classified as HAPA intervention studies. The most frequently used constructs were action control as an intervention and behaviour as an outcome measure. The overall evidence was graded with moderate certainty.

CONCLUSION

In the majority of the studies, the targeted intervention was flossing and the population consisted of students, adolescents and dental patients. All studies used only a selection of the HAPA constructs. Therefore, only a minority of the studies can be considered real HAPA intervention studies.

Interdental plaque reduction after use of different devices in patients with periodontitis and interdental recession: A randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of four different oral hygiene protocols involving adjunctive interdental devices in terms of plaque and bleeding scores in periodontitis-affected patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

This was a randomized clinical trial with a 5-week follow-up, including previously treated periodontitis-patients not undergoing any supportive care. Patients were randomly allocated to 4 groups: manual toothbrush (group TB); toothbrush plus dental floss (group TB/F); toothbrush plus interdental brushes (group TB/IDB); toothbrush plus rubber interdental picks (group TB/RIDB). Oral hygiene instructions (OHI) were provided at baseline (T-7) and at T0 (1-week) then bi-weekly (T14/T28). At T0 (supragingival professional cleaning was delivered. Plaque and bleeding indexes were taken at all time-points by a single calibrated examiner, blind to group allocation.

RESULTS

At T-7 patients were comparable for age, body mass index (BMI), and all clinical parameters, exceptions for the Interdental Angulated Bleeding Index. At T28, significant reductions of plaque and gingival inflammation were noted in all groups (p<0.001) and within the expected ranges. Intergroup comparisons identified that group TB/IDB and group TB/RIDB achieved lower levels of plaque and inflammation than group TB (p<0.05). Group TB/IDB and group TB/RIDB showed lower levels of plaque and lower inflammation as measured by angulated bleeding index than group TB/RIDB (p<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Interdental brushes and rubber interdental picks were more efficient than toothbrushing alone and toothbrushing and floss in reducing plaque and gingival inflammation measured in a periodontitis-affected population.

Mechanical plaque removal of periodontal maintenance patients: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

AIM

This systematic review synthesizes the available clinical evidence concerning efficacy of mechanical oral hygiene devices in periodontal maintenance patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Three databases were searched up to October 2019 for clinical trials conducted in adult patients in periodontal maintenance which evaluated the effect of toothbrushes or an interdental device on plaque removal and parameters of periodontal diseases. Descriptive analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) were performed.

RESULTS

Sixteen eligible publications, including 17 relevant comparisons, were retrieved. Four out of five comparisons found no clinical difference between a manual and power toothbrush. Of the interdental cleaning devices, the interdental brushes (IDBs) reduced plaque scores more effectively than a manual toothbrush alone. For the oral irrigator, two out of three comparisons indicated a positive effect on gingivitis scores, and probing pocket depth. The NMA demonstrated that for plaque removal the adjuvant use of IDBs was significantly more effective than the manual toothbrush alone. For the reduction of gingival inflammation, no product ranked higher than the manual toothbrush.

CONCLUSION

Due to the scarcity of studies that met the inclusion criteria for each of the oral hygiene devices and the low certainty of the resultant evidence, no strong "evidence-based" conclusion can be drawn concerning any specific oral hygiene device for patient self-care in periodontal maintenance.

Efficacy of dental floss with ellipsoidal knots vs conventional dental floss for plaque removal: A split-mouth randomized trial

OBJECTIVES

To compare clinical efficacy for plaque removal between dental floss with soft ellipsoidal knots and conventional floss.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We studied 33 university students (29 females and 4 males, 13 of them undergraduate/postgraduate students of dentistry), including regular and sporadic (less once/wk) users of dental floss, with interproximal spaces ≤1 mm, who used floss with and without knots in a randomized manner following a split-mouth design. The Modified Navy Plaque Index (RMNPI) by Rustogi et al. was applied to determine the total removed plaque (TPI) and that removed in the gingival area (GPI) and interproximal spaces (IPI).

RESULTS

The reduction in GPI was greater with the knotted vs conventional floss in all cases (14.77 ± 12.38; 64.79% vs 17.38 ± 13.66; 57.51%) and especially among no floss users (12.469 ± 10.98; 68.02% vs 15.833 ± 11.88; 58.55%). No statistically significant difference between floss types was found in TPI and IPI (globally or by floss utilization frequency) or in the mean GPI of floss users.

CONCLUSION

Floss with ellipsoidal knots showed similar efficacy to remove plaque in patients with less experience of flossing (but without statistically significant differences) compared with flossing themselves with conventional floss, and it may be an optimal solution for patients starting to use dental floss and for those with a lesser or only sporadic history of floss utilization.

Contemporary practices for mechanical oral hygiene to prevent periodontal disease

It is well established that dental plaque on teeth leads to gingivitis and periodontitis, and that several mechanical and chemical methods of plaque control can prevent gingivitis. The aim of the current review is to summarize and synthesize the available scientific evidence supporting practices for mechanical oral hygiene to prevent periodontal diseases. Evidence for contemporary practices of mechanical oral hygiene to prevent periodontal disease relies on studies of gingivitis patients. General recommendations concerning the ideal oral hygiene devices and procedures are still inconclusive. However, toothbrushing and interdental cleaning remain the mainstays of prevention of periodontal diseases. The primary approach requires individually tailored instruction for implementation of a systematic oral hygiene regimen.

Impact of interdental brush shape on interpapillary cleaning efficacy - a clinical trial

This study aimed to investigate whether interdental brush shape influences cleaning efficacy, by comparing a waist-shaped interdental brush (W-IDB) with a cylindrical IDB (C-IDB); both provided with the same bristle texture. Cleaning efficacy of differently shaped IDBs was measured in proximal surfaces of teeth in a split-mouth cross-over design. Twenty-eight patients abolished oral hygiene for 4 d. Line angle plaque area was scanned with an intraoral camera after use of disclosing dye in baseline and after IDB application and analyzed planimetrically. Additionally, bacterial load in the IDBs was analyzed after usage by colony forming units (cfu). A Wilcoxon signed-rank test with continuity correction was used to compare the results of the waist-shaped and the cylindrically-shaped IDBs. The waist-shaped IDBs cleaned significantly better than their cylindrically-shaped counterparts (area cleaned: 23.1% vs. 18.3%), when applied at same interdental spaces (p < 0.001). However, no significant differences were found in comparison of bacterial load on the IDBs (median cfu counts: 2.3E9 vs. 2.7E9, p = 0.93). Irrespective of bristle texture or size, IDB shape have impact on cleaning efficacy. Waist-shaped IDBs are more effective in cleaning of the line angle area than cylindrically-shaped IDBs.

Effects of interdental cleaning devices in preventing dental caries and periodontal diseases: a scoping review

To identify and map existing evidence on the effectiveness of interdental cleaning devices in preventing dental caries and periodontal diseases, a scoping review was carried out by electronically searching PubMed, Scopus and Embase. Studies on interdental cleaning devices, written in English, and published from January 2008 up to April 2019 were included in the review. Of 1860 studies identified, six systematic reviews (SR) were included in the review. One SR each was on flossing, interdental brushes, wood sticks and oral irrigation. Of two SR on multitude of interdental cleaning devices, one assessed comparative efficacy while the other both the individual and comparative efficacy. All reviews had assessed the heterogeneity and the methodological quality of studies included, and performed data extraction and meta-analysis where appropriate. Evidence ranged from weak to moderate with very low- to low-certainty for the adjunctive benefit of these devices to control plaque and gingivitis. It warrants long-term studies with sufficient power and those assessing the impact of interdental cleaning on interproximal caries to corroborate such evidence. Available evidence on the efficacy of interdental cleaning devices suggests that dental practitioners recommend patient-specific interdental cleaning devices that enable patients to achieve a safe and high standard of interdental cleaning.

An Overview of Different Interdental Cleaning Aids and Their Effectiveness

Optimisation of plaque control is essential for the success of non-surgical and surgical periodontal therapy. This cannot be achieved with brushing alone; hence, there is a need for adjunctive interdental cleaning aids. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of different interdental cleaning aids and review the literature for consensus on their effectiveness. A literature search of articles in English, up to December 2018, was conducted in Pubmed. High-quality flossing is difficult to achieve, and ineffective routine use of floss may not confer significant benefits over brushing alone. Interdental brushes are more effective than brushing as a monotherapy. They are at least as good if not superior to floss in reducing plaque and gingivitis. Although they are effective for patients regardless of their periodontal status (healthy or active), they are especially indicated in periodontal patients where widened embrasures are common. Added benefits include ease of use, patient acceptance, and recontouring of interdental tissues. Rubberpiks do not demonstrate inferiority to conventional interdental brushes. Wooden interdental aids appear to offer no significant advantage over brushing with respect to plaque removal; they may, however, reduce gingival bleeding. Oral irrigators are a promising tool for reducing gingival inflammation, despite minimal changes to plaque levels. For cleaning around dental implants, oral irrigators and interdental brushes are preferred over floss.

WITHDRAWN: Flossing for the management of periodontal diseases and dental caries in adults

BACKGROUND

Good oral hygiene is thought to be important for oral health. This review is to determine the effectiveness of flossing in addition to toothbrushing for preventing gum disease and dental caries in adults.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of flossing in addition to toothbrushing, as compared with toothbrushing alone, in the management of periodontal diseases and dental caries in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 17 October 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 4), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 17 October 2011), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 17 October 2011), CINAHL via EBSCO (1980 to 17 October 2011), LILACS via BIREME (1982 to 17 October 2011), ZETOC Conference Proceedings (1980 to 17 October 2011), Web of Science Conference Proceedings (1990 to 17 October 2011), Clinicaltrials.gov (to 17 October 2011) and the metaRegister of Controlled Clinical Trials (to 17 October 2011). We imposed no restrictions regarding language or date of publication. We contacted manufacturers of dental floss to identify trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials conducted comparing toothbrushing and flossing with only toothbrushing, in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias for the included studies and extracted data. We contacted trial authors for further details where these were unclear. The effect measure for each meta-analysis was the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random-effects models. We examined potential sources of heterogeneity, along with sensitivity analyses omitting trials at high risk of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve trials were included in this review, with a total of 582 participants in flossing plus toothbrushing (intervention) groups and 501 participants in toothbrushing (control) groups. All included trials reported the outcomes of plaque and gingivitis. Seven of the included trials were assessed as at unclear risk of bias and five were at high risk of bias.Flossing plus toothbrushing showed a statistically significant benefit compared to toothbrushing in reducing gingivitis at the three time points studied, the SMD being -0.36 (95% CI -0.66 to -0.05) at 1 month, SMD -0.41 (95% CI -0.68 to -0.14) at 3 months and SMD -0.72 (95% CI -1.09 to -0.35) at 6 months. The 1-month estimate translates to a 0.13 point reduction on a 0 to 3 point scale for Loe-Silness gingivitis index, and the 3 and 6 month results translate to 0.20 and 0.09 reductions on the same scale.Overall there is weak, very unreliable evidence which suggests that flossing plus toothbrushing may be associated with a small reduction in plaque at 1 or 3 months.None of the included trials reported data for the outcomes of caries, calculus, clinical attachment loss, or quality of life. There was some inconsistent reporting of adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is some evidence from twelve studies that flossing in addition to toothbrushing reduces gingivitis compared to toothbrushing alone. There is weak, very unreliable evidence from 10 studies that flossing plus toothbrushing may be associated with a small reduction in plaque at 1 and 3 months. No studies reported the effectiveness of flossing plus toothbrushing for preventing dental caries.

Home use of interdental cleaning devices, in addition to toothbrushing, for preventing and controlling periodontal diseases and dental caries

BACKGROUND

Dental caries (tooth decay) and periodontal diseases (gingivitis and periodontitis) affect the majority of people worldwide, and treatment costs place a significant burden on health services. Decay and gum disease can cause pain, eating and speaking difficulties, low self-esteem, and even tooth loss and the need for surgery. As dental plaque is the primary cause, self-administered daily mechanical disruption and removal of plaque is important for oral health. Toothbrushing can remove supragingival plaque on the facial and lingual/palatal surfaces, but special devices (such as floss, brushes, sticks, and irrigators) are often recommended to reach into the interdental area.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of interdental cleaning devices used at home, in addition to toothbrushing, compared with toothbrushing alone, for preventing and controlling periodontal diseases, caries, and plaque. A secondary objective was to compare different interdental cleaning devices with each other.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 16 January 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2018, Issue 12), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 16 January 2019), Embase Ovid (1980 to 16 January 2019) and CINAHL EBSCO (1937 to 16 January 2019). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared toothbrushing and a home-use interdental cleaning device versus toothbrushing alone or with another device (minimum duration four weeks).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently screened searches, selected studies, extracted data, assessed studies' risk of bias, and assessed evidence certainty as high, moderate, low or very low, according to GRADE. We extracted indices measured on interproximal surfaces, where possible. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses, using mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 35 RCTs (3929 randomised adult participants). Studies were at high risk of performance bias as blinding of participants was not possible. Only two studies were otherwise at low risk of bias. Many participants had a low level of baseline gingival inflammation.Studies evaluated the following devices plus toothbrushing versus toothbrushing: floss (15 trials), interdental brushes (2 trials), wooden cleaning sticks (2 trials), rubber/elastomeric cleaning sticks (2 trials), oral irrigators (5 trials). Four devices were compared with floss: interdental brushes (9 trials), wooden cleaning sticks (3 trials), rubber/elastomeric cleaning sticks (9 trials) and oral irrigators (2 trials). Another comparison was rubber/elastomeric cleaning sticks versus interdental brushes (3 trials).No trials assessed interproximal caries, and most did not assess periodontitis. Gingivitis was measured by indices (most commonly, Löe-Silness, 0 to 3 scale) and by proportion of bleeding sites. Plaque was measured by indices, most often Quigley-Hein (0 to 5).

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE

comparisons against toothbrushing aloneLow-certainty evidence suggested that flossing, in addition to toothbrushing, may reduce gingivitis (measured by gingival index (GI)) at one month (SMD -0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.12 to -0.04; 8 trials, 585 participants), three months or six months. The results for proportion of bleeding sites and plaque were inconsistent (very low-certainty evidence).Very low-certainty evidence suggested that using an interdental brush, plus toothbrushing, may reduce gingivitis (measured by GI) at one month (MD -0.53, 95% CI -0.83 to -0.23; 1 trial, 62 participants), though there was no clear difference in bleeding sites (MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.03; 1 trial, 31 participants). Low-certainty evidence suggested interdental brushes may reduce plaque more than toothbrushing alone (SMD -1.07, 95% CI -1.51 to -0.63; 2 trials, 93 participants).Very low-certainty evidence suggested that using wooden cleaning sticks, plus toothbrushing, may reduce bleeding sites at three months (MD -0.25, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.13; 1 trial, 24 participants), but not plaque (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.07).Very low-certainty evidence suggested that using rubber/elastomeric interdental cleaning sticks, plus toothbrushing, may reduce plaque at one month (MD -0.22, 95% CI -0.41 to -0.03), but this was not found for gingivitis (GI MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.21; 1 trial, 12 participants; bleeding MD 0.07, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.01; 1 trial, 30 participants).Very-low certainty evidence suggested oral irrigators may reduce gingivitis measured by GI at one month (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.06; 4 trials, 380 participants), but not at three or six months. Low-certainty evidence suggested that oral irrigators did not reduce bleeding sites at one month (MD -0.00, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.06; 2 trials, 126 participants) or three months, or plaque at one month (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.10; 3 trials, 235 participants), three months or six months, more than toothbrushing alone.

SECONDARY OBJECTIVE

comparisons between devicesLow-certainty evidence suggested interdental brushes may reduce gingivitis more than floss at one and three months, but did not show a difference for periodontitis measured by probing pocket depth. Evidence for plaque was inconsistent.Low- to very low-certainty evidence suggested oral irrigation may reduce gingivitis at one month compared to flossing, but very low-certainty evidence did not suggest a difference between devices for plaque.Very low-certainty evidence for interdental brushes or flossing versus interdental cleaning sticks did not demonstrate superiority of either intervention.Adverse eventsStudies that measured adverse events found no severe events caused by devices, and no evidence of differences between study groups in minor effects such as gingival irritation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Using floss or interdental brushes in addition to toothbrushing may reduce gingivitis or plaque, or both, more than toothbrushing alone. Interdental brushes may be more effective than floss. Available evidence for tooth cleaning sticks and oral irrigators is limited and inconsistent. Outcomes were mostly measured in the short term and participants in most studies had a low level of baseline gingival inflammation. Overall, the evidence was low to very low-certainty, and the effect sizes observed may not be clinically important. Future trials should report participant periodontal status according to the new periodontal diseases classification, and last long enough to measure interproximal caries and periodontitis.

Oral Hygiene Therapy Assists in Behavioural Intervention for Smoking Cessation: A Pilot Approach for Oral Health Care Providers

Introduction: Behavioural dependency, such as oral and hand fixation, can hinder cessation efforts when nicotine replacement therapy is used as a stand-alone intervention. We here present a case report of one of several patients who has successfully achieved smoking cessation utilizing oral hygiene therapy (OHT).

Case description: The patient is a 52-year-old male with a 25-year smoking habit of two packs daily. Previous attempts at smoking cessation were unsuccessful with various nicotine replacement therapies (NRTs). After introducing interdental cleaning device and modifying tooth-brushing techniques during oral hygiene therapy, the patient reported frequent use of toothpaste and using the device to satisfy his oral-hand fixation to successfully quit smoking.

Conclusion: Oral hygiene therapy may enhance smoking cessation in select patients who are more behavioural dependent than nicotine dependent. Future studies are needed to develop evidence-based individualized intervention to include OHT as part of the interdisciplinary approach for smoking cessation.

Interdental plaque reduction after use of different devices in young subjects with intact papilla: A randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVES

To determine the efficacy of 4 different oral hygiene regimens involving adjunctive interdental cleaning devices in unsupervised young subjects with intact interdental papilla.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Sixty periodontally healthy subjects were randomly allocated to 4 groups following different oral hygiene regimens (T-7): use of manual toothbrush alone; manual toothbrush plus dental floss; manual toothbrush plus interdental brushes; and manual toothbrush plus rubber interdental picks. Oral hygiene instructions (OHI) were given. One week after (T0), professional supragingival scaling and polishing was performed, and subjects were then reseen every 2 weeks (T14 and T28). At T-7, T0, T14 and T28, full-mouth plaque score (FMPS), full-mouth bleeding score (FMBS) and angulated bleeding index (AngBI) were taken.

RESULTS

During the first week (T-7/T0 unclean phase), FMPS decreased significantly in all groups except the group using dental floss. At T28, a significant decrease in FMPS (P < .001, all groups) and FMBS (P < .05, all groups except the group using flossing P < .001) was noted. Interdental FMPS showed significantly lower values in subjects treated with interdental brushes or rubber interdental picks vs toothbrushing alone (P < .05). The use of interdental picks was associated with reduced interdental FMBS when compared to flossing (P < .05).

CONCLUSION

In young subjects, with no interdental attachment loss, toothbrushing or toothbrushing and adjunctive interdental cleaning devices such as dental floss, interdental brushes or interdental rubber picks can significantly reduce both plaque and gingival inflammation. Use of interdental brushes or rubber picks reduces more interdental plaque in comparison with toothbrushing alone.

Efficacy of inter-dental mechanical plaque control in managing gingivitis--a meta-review

FOCUSED QUESTION

What is the effect of mechanical inter-dental plaque removal in addition to toothbrushing, on managing gingivitis using various formats of inter-dental self-care in adults based on evidence gathered from existing systematic reviews?

MATERIAL & METHODS

Three Internet sources were searched by a strategy designed to include systematic reviews on inter-dental cleaning devices. Plaque and gingivitis scores were the primary parameters of interest. Characteristics of selected papers were extracted. The potential risk of bias was estimated and the acquired evidence was graded.

RESULTS

Screening of 395 papers resulted in six systematic reviews. Two papers evaluated the efficacy of dental floss, two of inter-dental brushes (IDB), one of woodsticks and one of the oral irrigator. Weak evidence of unclear or small magnitude was retrieved that supported dental floss, woodsticks and the oral irrigator to reduce gingivitis in addition to toothbrushing. No concomitant evidence for an effect on plaque emerged. There is moderate evidence that IDBs in combination with toothbrushing reduce both plaque and gingivitis.

CONCLUSION

Evidence suggests that inter-dental cleaning with IDBs is the most effective method for inter-dental plaque removal. The majority of available studies fail to demonstrate that flossing is generally effective in plaque removal. All investigated devices for inter-dental self-care seem to support the management of gingivitis, however, to a varying extend.

Antimicrobial penetration in a dual-species oral biofilm after noncontact brushing: an in vitro study

OBJECTIVES

Oral biofilm is inevitably left behind, even after powered brushing. As a special feature, powered brushing removes biofilm in a noncontact mode. When the brushing distance becomes too large, biofilm is left behind. We hypothesize that biofilm left behind after brushing has different viscoelastic properties than before brushing, impacting antimicrobial penetration.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In vitro grown dual-species biofilms were subjected to 20 % mechanical deformation before and after powered brushing at 4-mm brushing distance. Biofilm thickness and stress relaxation were measured for unbrushed and brushed biofilms. Stress relaxation was analyzed with a three-element Maxwell model. Antimicrobial penetration from five mouthrinses was microscopically evaluated for unbrushed and brushed biofilms.

RESULTS

Thicknesses of unbrushed and brushed biofilms were similar. Brushing decreased the prevalence of fast and increased the prevalence of slow relaxation elements, which was accompanied by deeper penetration of chlorhexidine and cetylpyridinium chloride. Penetration of antimicrobials from other mouthrinses was relatively low in unbrushed and brushed biofilms.

CONCLUSIONS

This confirmation of our hypothesis points to an additional advantage of powered toothbrushing in a noncontact mode, changing the viscoelastic properties of biofilm in a direction that increases antimicrobial penetration of chlorhexidine and cetylpyridinium.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The biofilm left behind after noncontact powered toothbrushing may have less recalcitrance toward penetration of chlorhexidine and cetylpyridinium chloride than prior to brushing.

Low-cost periodontal therapy

Periodontitis is a complex infectious disease that affects low-income individuals disproportionately. Periodontitis is associated with specific bacterial species and herpesviruses, and successful prevention and treatment of the disease is contingent upon effective control of these pathogens. This article presents an efficacious, highly safe, minimally invasive, practical and low-cost periodontal therapy that involves professional and patient-administered mechanical therapy and antimicrobial agents. The major components are scaling for calculus removal, periodontal pocket irrigation with potent antiseptics, and treatment with systemic antibiotics for advanced disease. Povidone-iodine and sodium hypochlorite have all the characteristics for becoming the first-choice antiseptics in the management of periodontal diseases. Both agents show excellent antibacterial and antiviral properties, are readily available throughout the world, have been safely used in periodontal therapy for decades, offer significant benefits for individuals with very limited financial resources, and are well accepted by most dental professionals and patients. Four per cent chlorhexidine applied with a toothbrush to the most posterior part to the tongue dorsum can markedly reduce or eliminate halitosis in most individuals. Systemic antibiotics are used to treat periodontopathic bacteria that are not readily reached by topical therapy, such as pathogens within gingival tissue, within furcation defects, at the base of periodontal pockets, and on the tongue, tonsils and buccal mucosae. Valuable antibiotic therapies are amoxicillin-metronidazole (250 mg of amoxicillin and 250 mg of metronidazole, three times daily for 8 days) for young and middle-aged patients, and ciprofloxacin-metronidazole (500 mg of each, twice daily for 8 days) for elderly patients and for patients in developing countries who frequently harbor enteric rods subgingivally. Scaling to remove dental calculus and the prudent use of inexpensive antimicrobial agents can significantly retard or arrest progressive periodontitis in the great majority of patients.

Effectiveness of a motivational-behavioural skills protocol for oral hygiene among patients with hyposalivation

BACKGROUND

The main objective of this study was to assess the effectiveness of a motivational-behavioural skills protocol for plaque control in patients with hyposalivation.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

In a randomised, evaluator-blinded, controlled trial, 60 subjects with hyposalivation (12 men and 48 women) were randomly assigned to two groups: the control group received basic oral hygiene instruction, while for the study (intervention) group, oral hygiene instruction was based on cognitive behavioural principles and motivational interviewing (MI). Both groups were given oral hygiene instruction once every 15 days, with a total of four sessions over a 2-month period: plaque extension and community periodontal index of treatment needs (CPITN), frequency and duration of brushing, frequency of interdental cleaning and scores based on scale of 'self-efficacy for brushing of the teeth'. Clinical characteristics were compared between the two groups.

RESULTS

Both control and intervention group patients showed significantly lower plaque indices, bleeding indices and an improvement in probe depth after the 2-month study period. Interproximal brushing was significantly more frequent among the intervention group (p = 0.016).

CONCLUSION

In patients with hyposalivation, the application of oral hygiene instruction based on cognitive principles and MI offers benefits for periodontal health. Longer-term studies are needed to confirm these results.

Efficacy of a new interdental cleaning aid

Background:

It is now well established that removal of bacterial plaque can reduce the severity of chronic inflammatory periodontal disease. Periodontal disease is seen to progress faster interdentally and plaque control in these areas is of great importance. Various types of interdental cleaning aids have been developed in recent years. This study was aimed at evaluating the efficacy of a newly developed interdental cleaning aid, BrushPick, in a split mouth randomized clinical trial.

Materials and Methods:

This was a split mouth design study where the quadrant on one side of the oral cavity served as the control while another quadrant on the opposite side served as the test sample. Fifty-seven patients with mild-to-moderate periodontitis, presenting with open interdental embrasures, were selected for the study. After non-surgical periodontal therapy, they were asked to use the BrushPick in the embrasures on one side of the arch in a spilt mouth design study and the embrasures on the other side acted as controls. The Rustogi et al. modified Navy plaque index (RMNPI) and interdental bleeding index (IBI) were recorded at baseline, seven days, 14 days, and 28 days.

Statistical analysis:

The mean differences between test and control sites were compared using the studentt test. The mean difference was compared between different durations using analysis of variance (ANOVA).

Results:

The mean RMNPI was significantly different between the test and control sites at P<0.001 on both days 14 and 28. At 28 days the mean IBI was 0.08 (SD=0.02) for the experimental sites and 0.28 (SD=0.11) for the control sites. The difference was statistically significant at P<0.001. ANOVA showed that the mean RMNPI scores and mean IBI scores showed a statistically significant difference when compared at different durations at the test sites (P<0.0001). But, at the control sites there was no significant change.

Conclusion:

This study suggested that BrushPick reduces plaque and gingival bleeding in open interdental embrasures. Further large sampled clinical trials and comparative studies using gold standard interdental cleaning aids are required to establish the efficacy of this device.

Flossing for the management of periodontal diseases and dental caries in adults

BACKGROUND

Good oral hygiene is thought to be important for oral health. This review is to determine the effectiveness of flossing in addition to toothbrushing for preventing gum disease and dental caries in adults.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of flossing in addition to toothbrushing, as compared with toothbrushing alone, in the management of periodontal diseases and dental caries in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 17 October 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 4), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 17 October 2011), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 17 October 2011), CINAHL via EBSCO (1980 to 17 October 2011), LILACS via BIREME (1982 to 17 October 2011), ZETOC Conference Proceedings (1980 to 17 October 2011), Web of Science Conference Proceedings (1990 to 17 October 2011), Clinicaltrials.gov (to 17 October 2011) and the metaRegister of Controlled Clinical Trials (to 17 October 2011). We imposed no restrictions regarding language or date of publication. We contacted manufacturers of dental floss to identify trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials conducted comparing toothbrushing and flossing with only toothbrushing, in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias for the included studies and extracted data. We contacted trial authors for further details where these were unclear. The effect measure for each meta-analysis was the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random-effects models. We examined potential sources of heterogeneity, along with sensitivity analyses omitting trials at high risk of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve trials were included in this review, with a total of 582 participants in flossing plus toothbrushing (intervention) groups and 501 participants in toothbrushing (control) groups. All included trials reported the outcomes of plaque and gingivitis. Seven of the included trials were assessed as at unclear risk of bias and five were at high risk of bias.Flossing plus toothbrushing showed a statistically significant benefit compared to toothbrushing in reducing gingivitis at the three time points studied, the SMD being -0.36 (95% CI -0.66 to -0.05) at 1 month, SMD -0.41 (95% CI -0.68 to -0.14) at 3 months and SMD -0.72 (95% CI -1.09 to -0.35) at 6 months. The 1-month estimate translates to a 0.13 point reduction on a 0 to 3 point scale for Loe-Silness gingivitis index, and the 3 and 6 month results translate to 0.20 and 0.09 reductions on the same scale.Overall there is weak, very unreliable evidence which suggests that flossing plus toothbrushing may be associated with a small reduction in plaque at 1 or 3 months.None of the included trials reported data for the outcomes of caries, calculus, clinical attachment loss, or quality of life. There was some inconsistent reporting of adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is some evidence from twelve studies that flossing in addition to toothbrushing reduces gingivitis compared to toothbrushing alone. There is weak, very unreliable evidence from 10 studies that flossing plus toothbrushing may be associated with a small reduction in plaque at 1 and 3 months. No studies reported the effectiveness of flossing plus toothbrushing for preventing dental caries.

Is self interdental cleaning associated with dental plaque levels, dental calculus, gingivitis and periodontal disease?

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

To ascertain whether interdental cleaning behaviours of Australian adults were associated with lower levels of plaque, gingivitis and periodontal disease.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Data were obtained from the National Survey of Adult Oral Health 2004-06. Outcome variables were three indicators of oral hygiene outcomes (the presence or not of dental plaque, dental calculus and gingivitis) and two of periodontal disease (the presence or not of at least one tooth with a periodontal pocket or clinical attachment loss of ≥ 4 mm). The independent variable was classified into the following three groups: regularly clean interproximally 'at least daily' (daily+); 'less than daily' (< daily); and 'do not regularly clean interproximally' (reference group). Poisson regression with robust variance estimation was used to calculate prevalence ratios (PRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) relative to the reference group, adjusted for covariates.

RESULTS

Regular self interdental cleaning was associated with less dental plaque (< daily, PR = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.84, 0.95; and daily+, PR = 0.89, 95% CI = 0.82, 0.96), less dental calculus (< daily, PR = 0.88, 95% CI = 0.80, 0.97; and daily+, PR = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.70, 0.89) and lower levels of moderate/severe gingivitis (daily+, PR = 0.85, 95% CI = 0.77, 0.94). Periodontal pocketing was less likely for the < daily group (PR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.46, 0.82), but was not associated with daily+ cleaning (PR = 0.99, 95% CI = 0.663, 1.49). There was not a significant association between interdental cleaning and clinical attachment loss (< daily, PR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.77, 1.05; and daily+, PR = 1.17, 95% CI = 0.95, 1.44).

CONCLUSION

Regular interdental cleaning was associated with better oral hygiene outcomes, such as dental plaque and gingivitis, although there was no significant association between regular interdental cleaning and clinical attachment loss.

Prevention and therapeutic approaches to gingival inflammation

The most important preventive and therapeutic effort to reduce inflammation is to remove the dental plaque thoroughly. Oral self-care is thus of crucial importance to achieve and maintain oral health. There is a scarcity of scientific evidence on the most effective models for behavioural change aimed to improve oral hygiene. There is a need for randomized-controlled trials, based on behavioural sciences and performed with great methodological rigour, to investigate the usefulness of these proposed behavioural changes. Oral hygiene regimens for patients with natural teeth as well as dental implants should include brushing twice daily, inter-dental cleaning once daily and rinsing with efficient rinses as an adjunct to mechanical infection control. Power toothbrushes are preferable as they are more effective than manual toothbrushes. Inter-dental brushes seem to be most effective and useful for inter-dental cleaning. Scaling and root planing is effective in reducing inflammation and probing depths in patients with periodontitis.