Clinical evaluation of the phase contrast microscope as a motivational aid in oral hygiene

Effect of three different motivational techniques on oral hygiene and gingival health of patients undergoing multibracketed orthodontics

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of three different motivational techniques for maintaining good oral hygiene during fixed appliance orthodontic treatment.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 62 adolescents in the age range of 12-18 years, requiring fixed orthodontic treatment were evaluated for the efficacy of three different motivational techniques, ie, conventional plaque control measures (group I), chair side motivational tests with conventional plaque control measures (group II), and phase contrast microscopy with conventional plaque control measures (group III), in improving oral hygiene and gingival health over a period of 6 months.

RESULTS

A gradual decline in mean plaque scores in group III was found, ie, from 1.13 ± 0.42 at baseline to 0.64 ± 0.39 at 6 months (P < .05). An intragroup analysis of mean gingivitis scores in group III showed statistically significant decline in the mean gingival scores from 1.49 ± 0.45 to 1.08 ± 0.61 over a period of 6 months(P < .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Phase contrast microscopy along with the conventional method of plaque disclosure and demonstration of the horizontal scrubbing method of brushing have a long-lasting effect on the patient. This reduces the need of frequent reinforcement sessions of plaque control programs when compared to chair side motivational tests and conventional plaque control measures.

Salt and peroxide compared with conventional oral hygiene. III. Patient compliance and acceptance

This study was undertaken to evaluate patient compliance with, and acceptance of, a salt and peroxide oral hygiene regimen compared with conventional oral hygiene regimens without or with the use of phase-contrast microscope viewing of subgingival plaque over a period of 2 years. A total of 231 subjects with early to moderate periodontitis were randomly divided into four groups. All groups were repeatedly instructed and motivated in their respective regimens. Subjects also received scaling and root planing using clinical and microbial criteria. Compliance with, and acceptance of, the two oral hygiene regimens were determined at the end of the study using a structured self-administered questionnaire. Results indicated that 74% and 58% (P less than or equal to 0.01) of subjects in the conventional and salt/peroxide groups, respectively, used their assigned regimen 4 to 7 days a week during the entire study. More than half of the subjects (54%) using each of the oral hygiene regimens indicated that they flossed once daily. Inconvenience was cited by 23% of the conventional and 43% of the salt/peroxide groups (P less than or equal to 0.01) as the main reason for not using their regimens. Twenty-three per cent of conventional group and 14% of salt/peroxide group indicated that shared their oral hygiene supplies with others. Eighty per cent and 57% (P less than or equal to 0.01) of the conventional and salt/peroxide groups, respectively, stated that they liked their regimens. Ninety-six per cent of all subjects felt that their regimen helped their periodontal status.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)