Comparison of Interdental Cleaning Methods: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Comparison of the Efficacy of Different Oral Hygiene Aids in Maintaining Periodontal Health in Patients With Gingivitis

Background Gingivitis is a common oral health condition characterized by inflammation of the gingiva, which, if left untreated, can progress to more severe forms of periodontal disease. Effective oral hygiene practices play a crucial role in managing gingivitis, but the comparative efficacy of different oral hygiene aids remains unclear. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the efficacy of various oral hygiene aids in maintaining periodontal health in patients with gingivitis, considering gender and the degree of gingivitis as potential influencing factors. Methods A total of 120 participants with gingivitis were enrolled in this study. The participants were randomly assigned to one of four groups, each utilizing a different oral hygiene aid: Group A (toothbrush), Group B (electric toothbrush), Group C (brushing along with the use of an interdental brush), and Group D (brushing along with the use of a water flosser). All participants received toothpaste for use with their respective oral hygiene aids. Periodontal health parameters, including plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), and bleeding on probing (BOP) score, were assessed at baseline and after a specified duration of oral hygiene intervention. Also, the microbial count for Streptococcus, Actinomyces, Porphyromonas, Fusobacterium, and Veillonella species was evaluated. Results No significant differences in periodontal health outcomes were observed between males and females in any of the oral hygiene aid groups. Similarly, no significant differences were found among the mild, moderate, and severe gingivitis groups within each oral hygiene aid group. The microbial count also has no statistical significance except for streptococcus species. These findings indicate that the efficacy of the tested oral hygiene aids was comparable across genders and different degrees of gingivitis. Conclusion The findings of this study suggest that the tested oral hygiene aids were effective in maintaining periodontal health in patients with gingivitis, irrespective of gender and the degree of gingivitis. These results have implications for oral healthcare professionals in their recommendations to patients regarding oral hygiene practices. However, it is important to consider the limitations of this study, including the relatively small sample size and the specific oral hygiene aids tested.

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.

Multicenter Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing the Contribution of Proxabrushes with Regular Toothbrushes and Only Regular Toothbrushes to the Oral Health of Thai Elderly

Objective

The aim of this two-group experimental study was to explore the effects of proxabrush on Thai elderly oral health. Design and Setting. Multicenter randomized controlled trial, parallel grouped, open label, blocked randomization was used at each province to allocate treatment. The study was conducted at public hospitals in 16 provinces in Thailand between November 2019 and January 2020.

Methods

Participants in the test group used proxabrushes and regular toothbrushes, and participants in the control group used only regular toothbrushes for 6 weeks. Plaque accumulation, gingival status, and oral healthcare data were collected at baseline and at 6-week follow-up. Clinical oral health examiner was blinded to group assignment. Randomization was computer-generated, with allocation concealment by opaque sequentially number sealed envelopes. Data analysis compared plaque and gingival indices between the test and control groups.

Results

A total of 510 elderly with at least 20 natural teeth and interdental spaces were randomized (test n = 255; control n = 255), and 35 were excluded from analysis because of early drop out leaving 239 in the test group and 236 in the control group. A sample of 475 aged between 60 and 91 years participated in the study; 158 (33.3%) were males and 317 (66.7%) were females. The results revealed that, compared to baseline knowledge, attitude and practice were improved at follow-up for both the test and control groups (p < 0.05). At follow-up, the independent-samples t-test compares the test group plaque index mean of 0.49 (SD 0.44) to the control group mean of 0.60 (SD 0.56); a mean difference of 0.11 (95% CI 0.02 to 0.20) obtained demonstrated statistical significance (p = 0.014), and comparing the test group gingival index mean of 0.52 (SD 0.50) to the control group mean of 0.65 (SD 0.60), a mean difference of 0.13 (95% CI 0.03 to 0.23) obtained demonstrated statistical significance (p = 012). At follow-up, the test group had lower plaque accumulation and better gingival status than the control group. Gender, medical problems, educational level, occupation, and age were not different between the test and control groups. A combination of daily proxabrush and regular toothbrush use yielded significant benefits over regular tooth-brushing alone.

Conclusions

In conclusion, proxabrush has been found to be an effective interdental cleaning aid among Thai elderly. This trial is registered with TCTR20220127004.

Effect of Triweekly Interdental Brushing on Bleeding Reduction in Adults: A Six-Month Retrospective Study

This study assessed the effect of triweekly interdental brushing for a period of 6 months using the bleeding on full-mouth interdental brushing (BOFIB) index. All participants answered questionnaires and were instructed to clean all interdental areas using an interdental brush at least every second day. A dentist assessed the BOFIB index of 28 participants at baseline and at 3- and 6-month follow-up visits. We stratified the participants into three groups: IB-NN, those who used the interdental brush less than three times per week both before and after this program; IB-NY, those who used the interdental brush less than three times per week before the program but at least three times per week after the program; and IB-YY, those who used it at least three times per week both before and after the program. Owing to the weekly number of interdental brushings, the IB-YY and the other two groups showed a significant difference at baseline. At the 6-month follow-up, the weekly number of interdental brushings led to a significant difference between the IB-NN and the other two groups. The BOFIB index was lower among the compliant participants than among the noncompliant participants after 3 and 6 months of triweekly interdental brushing.

Interdental and subgingival microbiota may affect the tongue microbial ecology and oral malodour in health, gingivitis and periodontitis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Oral malodour is often observed in gingivitis and chronic periodontitis patients, and the tongue microbiota is thought to play a major role in malodorous gas production, including volatile sulphur compounds (VSCs) such as hydrogen sulphide (H₂ S) and methanethiol (CH₃ SH). This study aimed to examine the link between the presence of VSCs in mouth air (as a marker of oral malodour) and the oral bacterial ecology in the tongue and periodontal niches of healthy, gingivitis and periodontitis patients.

METHODS

Participants were clinically assessed using plaque index, bleeding on probing (BOP) and periodontal probing depths, and VSC concentrations in their oral cavity measured using a portable gas chromatograph. Tongue scrapings, subgingival and interdental plaque were collected from healthy individuals (n = 22), and those with gingivitis (n = 14) or chronic periodontitis (n = 15). The bacterial 16S rRNA gene region V3-V4 in these samples was sequenced, and the sequences were analysed using the minimum entropy decomposition pipeline.

RESULTS

Elevated VSC concentrations and CH₃ SH:H₂ S were observed in periodontitis compared with health. Significant ecological differences were observed in the tongue microbiota of healthy subjects with high plaque scores compared to low plaque scores, suggesting a possible connection between the microbiota of the tongue and the periodontium and that key dysbiotic changes may be initiated in the clinically healthy individuals who have higher dental plaque accumulation. Greater subgingival bacterial diversity was positively associated with H₂ S in mouth air. Periodontopathic bacteria known to be prolific VSC producers increased in abundance on the tongue associated with increased bleeding on probing (BOP) and total percentage of periodontal pockets >6 mm, supporting the suggestion that the tongue may become a reservoir for periodontopathogens.

CONCLUSION

This study highlights the importance of the periodontal microbiota in malodour and has detected dysbiotic changes in the tongue microbiota in periodontitis.

Comparative in vitro study of the cleaning efficacy of AirFloss ultra and I-Prox Sulcus brushes in an orthodontic phantom model

Preventing biofilm-related risks such as gingivitis and white spot lesions during orthodontic treatments is very challenging. The cleaning efficiencies of AirFloss Ultra and I-Prox P sulcus brushes were evaluated using an orthodontic phantom model. After attaching brackets onto black-coated maxillary KaVo teeth, a plaque substitute was applied. The evaluated tooth surfaces were divided into two areas. Cleaning was performed with an AirFloss Ultra with two (A-2) or four (A-4) sprays or an I-Prox P for two (I-2) or four (I-4) seconds. Images before and after cleaning were digitally subtracted, and the percentage of fully cleaned surfaces was determined (Adobe Photoshop CS5, ImageJ). Statistical analysis was performed by ANOVA and post hoc tests with Bonferroni correction (SPSS 25, p < 0.05). The mean values of total cleaning efficacy were 26.87% for I-2, 43.73% for I-4, 34.93%, for A-2 and 56.78% for A-4. The efficacy was significantly higher for A-4 than for A-2, I-4, and I-2. There were significant differences between the four groups. Repeated cleaning led to an improved result. Within the study limitations, the AirFloss Ultra with four sprays proved to be more efficient than the sulcus brush I-Prox P for cleaning.

The Effectiveness of Waist-Shaped and Straight-Shaped Interdental Brushes in Cleaning Implant Overdenture Attachments: A Self-Controlled Clinical Trial

Elderly patients often find it challenging to remove plaque accumulated on the attachments of implant overdentures (IODs) using conventional cleaning instruments. Further, excessive plaque accumulation can lead to peri-implant diseases and occasionally to respiratory diseases. Therefore, here, we aimed to compare the effectiveness of waist-shaped interdental brushes (WIBs) with that of straight-shaped interdental brushes (SIBs) in plaque removal from the locator attachments of IODs. Twenty participants with 2 locator attachments retaining mandibular IODs participated in this study. After the baseline cleaning, the participants refrained from oral hygiene maintenance for 3 days. A dentist cleaned 1 of the attachments using the WIB and the other attachment using the SIB. The pre- and post-cleaning modified plaque index (mPLI) scores were recorded. After another 3 days free from oral hygiene maintenance, the trained participants repeated the same cleaning procedure using the WIB and SIB. Pre- and post-cleaning mPLI scores were recorded. Regardless of the type of brush used, the post-cleaning mPLI scores were lower than the pre-cleaning scores. After the cleaning procedure, the overall mean mPLI score was lower in the WIB group than in the SIB group. The post-cleaning mPLI scores at the line angles and on the axial surfaces of the attachments were also lower in the WIB group than in the SIB group. There was no difference in the cleaning effectiveness between the dentist and participants when they used the same type of interdental brush. The WIB was significantly more efficient in plaque removal than the SIB, especially at the line-angle sites.

Development of a European consensus from dentists, dental hygienists and physicians on a standard for oral health care in care-dependent older people: An e-Delphi study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to obtain a consensus on oral health policy, access to dental care, oral hygiene measures and training levels.

BACKGROUND

Poor oral health is widespread in care-dependent older people, but no consensus for a minimum standard of oral health care exists yet.

METHODS

The e-Delphi approach was applied to a selected panel of interdisciplinary experts. Data analysis was based on three measurements: (a) ≥70% of experts' opinion fall into category "agree or strongly agree," (b) median score on the 5-point Likert scale ≥4, (c) interquartile range ≤1.

RESULTS

A total of 31 experts from 17 European countries participated in this survey. Agreement was achieved for a compulsory dental examination when an elder is admitted to a long-term care (LTC) facility. Older people should brush their teeth twice/day and regularly clean interproximal spaces and oral mucosa. Dentures should be rinsed after meals and cleaned twice/day. The use of denture cleansing tablets was considered necessary. Dentures should be removed before sleeping and stored dry. A 5000 ppm fluoride toothpaste should be applied daily in elder with high caries risk. A short report on the oral health status of the elder should be included in the geriatric assessment. All experts concluded that the knowledge and the training in oral health care for caregivers and family members of care-dependent older people were imperative.

CONCLUSIONS

Using the e-Delphi method, multidisciplinary healthcare professionals from different countries agreed on certain cardinal recommendations for a standard oral health care for care-dependent older people.

A network meta-analysis of interproximal oral hygiene methods in the reduction of clinical indices of inflammation

BACKGROUND

A wide selection of Interdental Oral Hygiene (IOH) aids is available to consumers. Recommendations for selection are, however, limited by the lack of direct comparisons in available studies. We aimed to assess the comparative efficacy of IOH aids using Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis (BNMA).

METHODS

Two independent reviewers performed a systematic literature review of randomized clinical trials assessing IOH aids, based on a focused question. Gingival inflammation (Gingival Index (GI), Bleeding-on-probing (BOP)) was the primary outcome and plaque and probing depth were secondary outcomes A random-effects arm-based BNMA model was run for each outcome; posterior medians and 95% credible-intervals (CIs) summarized marginal distributions of parameters.

RESULTS

A two-phase selection process identified 22 trials assessing 10 IOH aids as brushing adjuncts. Interdental brushes (IB) yielded the largest reduction in GI (0.23 [95% CI: 0.09, 0.37]) as toothbrushing adjuncts, followed by water-jet (WJ) (0.19 [95% CI: 0.14, 0.24]). Rankings based on posterior probabilities revealed that IB and WJ had the highest probability of being "best" (64.7% and 27.4%, respectively) for GI reduction, whereas the probability for toothpick and floss being the "best" IOH aids was near zero. Notably, except for toothpicks, all IOH aids were better at reducing GI as compared with control.

CONCLUSIONS

BNMA enabled us to quantitatively evaluate IOH aids and provide a global ranking of their efficacy. Interdental brushes and water-jets ranked high for reducing gingival bleeding, whereas toothpicks and floss ranked last. The patient-perceived benefit of IOH aids is not clear because gingival inflammation measures are physical indicators of periodontal health.

Preparation, characterisation and microbiological examination of Pickering nano-emulsions containing essential oils, and their effect on Streptococcus mutans biofilm treatment

Essential oils (EOs) are commonly applied in mouth care products like mouthwashes, mostly as an ethanolic solution or by usage of surfactants as solubilising agents. In this study, we present a formulation for preparation of Pickering nano-emulsions (PnE) of EOs as a novel form for application of EOs in mouth care. For the preparation of PnE, we have synthesised surface-modified silica nanoparticles with a mean diameter of 20 nm, as well as we have examined the effect of EOs concentration on PnE droplet size and stability. In vitro study of their effect on the Streptococcus mutans biofilm as the main pathogen of dental health problems has been performed. We have found that EOs in the PnE form has the highest effectiveness against biofilm formation. Diffusion through the biofilm model membrane was studied to explain this observation. We have found that PnEs have a better performance in the transportation of EOs trough model membrane than the ethanolic solutions and conventional emulsions (CEs).

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: Interdental brushing for the prevention and control of periodontal diseases and dental caries in adults

BACKGROUND

Effective oral hygiene is a crucial factor in maintaining good oral health, which is associated with overall health and health-related quality of life. Dental floss has been used for many years in conjunction with toothbrushing for removing dental plaque in between teeth, however, interdental brushes have been developed which many people find easier to use than floss, providing there is sufficient space between the teeth.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of interdental brushing in addition to toothbrushing, as compared with toothbrushing alone or toothbrushing and flossing for the prevention and control of periodontal diseases, dental plaque and dental caries.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 7 March 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 2), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 7 March 2013), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 7 March 2013), CINAHL via EBSCO (1980 to 7 March 2013), LILACS via BIREME (1982 to 7 March 2013), ZETOC Conference Proceedings (1980 to 7 March 2013) and Web of Science Conference Proceedings (1990 to 7 March 2013). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (http://clinicaltrials.gov) and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (http://www.controlled-trials.com/mrct/) for ongoing trials to 7 March 2013. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (including split-mouth design, cross-over and cluster-randomised trials) of dentate adult patients. The interventions were a combination of toothbrushing and any interdental brushing procedure compared with toothbrushing only or toothbrushing and flossing.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors assessed each of the included studies to confirm eligibility, assessed risk of bias and extracted data using a piloted data extraction form. We calculated standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for continuous outcomes where different scales were used to assess an outcome. We attempted to extract data on adverse effects of interventions. Where data were missing or unclear we attempted to contact study authors to obtain further information.

MAIN RESULTS

There were seven studies (total 354 participants analysed) included in this review. We assessed one study as being low, three studies as being high and three studies as being at unclear risk of bias. Studies only reported the clinical outcome gingivitis and plaque data, with no studies providing data on many of the outcomes: periodontitis, caries, halitosis and quality of life. Three studies reported that no adverse events were observed or reported during the study. Two other studies provided some data on adverse events but we were unable to pool the data due to lack of detail. Two studies did not report whether adverse events occurred.Interdental brushing in addition to toothbrushing, as compared with toothbrushing aloneOnly one high risk of bias study (62 participants in analysis) looked at this comparison and there was very low-quality evidence for a reduction in gingivitis (0 to 4 scale, mean in control): mean difference (MD) 0.53 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.83) and plaque (0 to 5 scale): MD 0.95 (95% CI 0.56 to 1.34) at one month, favouring of use of interdental brushes. This represents a 34% reduction in gingivitis and a 32% reduction in plaque.Interdental brushing in addition to toothbrushing, as compared with toothbrushing and flossingSeven studies provided data showing a reduction in gingivitis in favour of interdental brushing at one month: SMD -0.53 (95% CI -0.81 to -0.24, seven studies, 326 participants, low-quality evidence). This translates to a 52% reduction in gingivitis (Eastman Bleeding Index). Although a high effect size in the same direction was observed at three months (SMD -1.98, 95% CI -5.42 to 1.47, two studies, 107 participants, very low quality), the confidence interval was wide and did not exclude the possibility of no difference. There was insufficient evidence to claim a benefit for either interdental brushing or flossing for reducing plaque (SMD at one month 0.10, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.33, seven studies, 326 participants, low-quality evidence) and insufficient evidence at three months (SMD -2.14, 95% CI -5.25 to 0.97, two studies, 107 participants very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Only one study looked at whether toothbrushing with interdental brushing was better than toothbrushing alone, and there was very low-quality evidence for a reduction in gingivitis and plaque at one month. There is also low-quality evidence from seven studies that interdental brushing reduces gingivitis when compared with flossing, but these results were only found at one month. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether interdental brushing reduced or increased levels of plaque when compared to flossing.

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.

Behavioural interventions that have the potential to improve self-care in adults with periodontitis: a systematic review

AIM

To evaluate behavioural and educational interventions used to improve self-care in adult periodontitis patients in comparison with conventional instruction.

METHODS

A systematic electronic search of empirical studies that were published up to June 2017 using the MEDLINE database was performed. The reference lists of all of the included studies and articles from six separate journals were manually searched.

RESULTS

A total of 1806 articles were identified. Six articles fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The interventions used in periodontal treatment had theoretical backgrounds of cognitive behavioural approach, self-regulation theory of Leventhal, motivational interviewing and a client self-care commitment model. The control group in each study was described receiving conventional information. The outcomes of the interventions were classified into three categories: 1) clinical findings 2) self-reported self-care and 3) patient evaluations of the intervention. The behavioural intervention groups seemed to perform slightly better than the control groups when clinical outcome measures such as the presence of plaque or number of periodontal pockets were used. Furthermore, behavioural interventions increased patient reported compliance (e.g. effectiveness of self-care and frequency of interdental cleaning). The different behavioural techniques all seemed to work more effectively than conventional instruction. No behavioural technique could be identified superior to the other.

CONCLUSIONS

The behavioural interventions seem to be beneficial for patient adherence and may therefore improve periodontal treatment success. However, there is a need to further explore the use of different methods in studies with larger sample sizes, longer follow-up times and both behavioural and clinical outcome measures.

Comparison of two interdental cleaning aids: A randomized clinical trial

AIM

The aim of this study was a comparison of the handling and acceptance of two kinds of interdental brushes (interdental brush with a handle [HB] and a newly invented interdental cleaning device [NB]).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

In a randomized crossover trial, 40 test subjects with an average number of 23.5 interdental areas were examined. At two appointments with a "washout" period of one week, the volunteers tried out both cleaning tools (HB and NB). They were asked to clean as many interdental spaces as possible. The percentage of spaces, which could be reached, is the IRI (Interdental Reachability Index). Furthermore, subjective impressions were determined.

RESULTS

The average IRI using HB was 64% compared to 80% using of NB (P<.001); 62.5% of the volunteers found the cleaning with HB painful and 15% the cleaning with NB. The subjective feeling after cleaning was 1.75 with NB compared to 2.2 with HB (P=.015), grading the feeling, from 1 for "very good" to 5 for "poor." The acceptance of regular interdental hygiene was rated 1.95 in the case of the NB and 2.85 in the case of the HB. After both appointments, the test subjects declared that they would use the NB 3.05 times and the HB 1.78 times a week.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that the test subjects reached more interdental spaces with NB than with the HB. NB can improve the usage of interdental brushes. Regarding subjective comfort, participants also favoured NB over HB.

The Bleeding on Brushing Index: a novel index in preventive dentistry

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the suitability of a dichotomous index, based on a special interdental brushing tool, to detect initial pathological processes in interproximal areas. Furthermore, different techniques of interdental hygiene were compared.

METHODS

Participants (n = 108) were instructed to clean their teeth using the Bass technique and were randomly assigned to three groups according to the type of interdental cleaning used: group A, use of interdental brushes; group B, no interdental hygiene (the control group); and group C, use of dental floss. Approximal Plaque Index (API), Plaque Index (PI), modified Sulcus Bleeding Index (mSBI) and the Bleeding on Brushing Index (BOB) were measured at baseline, and after 2 (t1) and 4 (t2) weeks. Statistical analysis was performed using the Wilcoxon test and the Mann-Whitney U-test.

RESULTS

One-hundred and six participants completed the study. The BOB decreased significantly in all groups (P < 0.001) with the most pronounced reduction being recorded for group A (baseline: 49.3 ± 23.0%; 4 weeks: 5.1 ± 6.9%). Also, the mSBI (P < 0.001) decreased significantly in all groups during the study. The API appeared to be less affected by the oral hygiene than other indices. The highest correlation was observed between BOB and mSBI (r = 0.785, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The BOB is a valuable complement for the existing array of indices in preventive dentistry, and is able to detect potential pathological processes in interproximal spaces. Additionally, this study suggests that interdental hygiene with individually selected brushes is superior to flossing.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

With the BOB, gingival inflammation can be demonstrated to patients, which could increase compliance.

Efficacy of interdental calibrated brushes on bleeding reduction in adults: a 3-month randomized controlled clinical trial

This study investigated the effect of interdental brushes on the reduction of interproximal bleeding in adults without periodontal disease. Forty-six adults were enrolled in a 3-month, observer-blinded, parallel-group randomized control trial. The test group used a standard manual toothbrush twice daily and an interdental brush daily. The control group used a standard manual toothbrush. At each visit, a calibrated colorimetric probe was used in all interdental spaces to determine the appropriate size of the interdental brush required, the brush of the corresponding size was introduced into the interproximal space, and the presence of bleeding was recorded. The outcome was the frequency of bleeding after application of the appropriate interdental brush. All participants were evaluated 1 wk, 1 month, and 3 months after the baseline visit. The overall preventive fraction with respect to bleeding frequency was 46% at 1 wk and 72% at 3 months. More bleeding reduction was observed in anterior sites than in posterior sites (80% vs. 69%, respectively). Participants with low baseline bleeding frequency presented with less bleeding (OR = 2.3). This study shows that daily use of calibrated interdental brushes reduces interdental bleeding. These findings may support interdental cleaning as an effective means to help individuals maintain and/or achieve optimal oral health.

Oral hygiene behavior, smoking, and perceived oral health problems among university students

Background:

Behavioral aspects play a major role in the prevention of oral diseases. Moreover, not many people are aware of the relationship of smoking with potential oral diseases. Therefore, the aims of this study were to analyze oral hygiene behavior, smoking habits, and perceived oral health problems among a sample of university students in Al-Kharj, Saudi Arabia.

Materials and Methods:

A self-administered questionnaire about oral hygiene behavior, smoking, and perceived oral health problems was developed. The questionnaires were mainly distributed in Medical, Dental, and Pharmacy colleges of the university. Questionnaires completed at other colleges were included under the term “other colleges.”

Results:

Overall, 380 questionnaires were returned. Majority of the students (92.4%) reported cleaning their teeth. Most of the students reported cleaning teeth once daily (48.7%). Just over a half (55.8%) reported having a dental check-up in the last 6 months, and a significantly higher number of dental students reported having a dental check-up (P < 0.05). Regarding smoking, the majority (63.4%) reported to have never smoked while 17.3% reported that they were smoking frequently. About 17.6% perceived oral health problems, including a significant proportion of those who reported frequent smoking.

Conclusions:

Oral hygiene behavior exhibited by the university students sample was similar. Majority cleaned their teeth, although only once. Smoking habit was not exhibited by the vast majority of students. Frequent smokers perceived oral health problems more than other students.

Evaluating awareness regarding oral hygiene practices and exploring gender differences among patients attending for oral prophylaxis

BACKGROUND

Oral hygiene is intimated in health of all parts of the body including oral cavity. The understanding of actual practices in keeping the oral heath at standard based on patient's perceptions of oral health care is vital. Understanding the effect of gender on oral health would facilitate the development of successful attitude and behavior modification approach towards sustainable oral health.

PURPOSE OF STUDY

To evaluate awareness regarding oral hygiene practices and exploring gender differences among patients attending for oral prophylaxis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A survey was conducted among 250 patients attending the department of periodontology, Maulana Azad institute of dental sciences for oral prophylaxis. A structured questionnaire was used to collect information regarding practices and perception about oral hygiene.

RESULTS

Majority of the patients (60.4%) felt that oral hygiene is mandatory for overall health of the body. The use of toothpaste and toothbrush (83.6%) was the most preferred cleaning aid among the study population in the present study. The major constraint for avoiding dental examination was no felt need (41.2%) followed by cost of dental treatment (26.8%) and time constraints (24.0%).

CONCLUSIONS

Professional plaque removal and regular follow-up combined with oral hygiene instructions to the patients can minimize the level of gingival inflammation and swelling. The poor resources for dental care, common malpractices and nonavailability of professional care are the main barriers in seeking optimum oral hygiene.

Improving the mechanical properties of multiuse dental floss holders

OBJECTIVES

This study was designed to determine the effect of using a tensioning device and various winding techniques on the tension of a polytetrafluorethylene (PTFE) floss in a multiuse holder. The hypothesis of this study is that the use of a tensioning device improves the handling and mechanical properties of floss holders.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The floss holder was modified so that four different degrees of tension (single-/double-wound; with/without tensioning device) were obtained and tested in an in vitro model approximating dental proximal contact resistance. The following parameters were measured: (I) the force (N) necessary to pass through the proximal contact after the 30th passage, (II) the displacement of the floss (mm), (III) the loosening of the floss (offset, mm), (IV) the change in distance between the branches (mm).

RESULTS

(I) passage force. All modifications reached 11 N (median). For the double-wound modification using the tensioning device, the smallest displacement (II) was 3.6 mm; the single-wound modification without the tensioning device had the highest displacement (7.6 mm, medians) (III). The offset of all four different modifications ranged between 0 and -2 mm (medians). For the modification without the tensioning device, there was a difference in offset of -2 mm (single-wound) and 0.5 mm (double-wound) (medians). Modifications with the tensioning device did not produce any offset differences. (IV) A change in distance between the branches between -3 mm and -2 mm, respectively (with the tensioning device), and 0 mm (without the tensioning device) was observed (median). The results indicated that double-wound floss and the use of a tensioning device both lead to a constant tension of the floss in the floss holder.

CONCLUSIONS

Technical modifications such as those shown in this study should improve the mechanical properties of multiuse floss holders, which, in turn, could lead to more user-friendly floss holders and hence to higher user acceptance.

Interdental brushing for the prevention and control of periodontal diseases and dental caries in adults

BACKGROUND

Effective oral hygiene is a crucial factor in maintaining good oral health, which is associated with overall health and health-related quality of life. Dental floss has been used for many years in conjunction with toothbrushing for removing dental plaque in between teeth, however, interdental brushes have been developed which many people find easier to use than floss, providing there is sufficient space between the teeth.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effects of interdental brushing in addition to toothbrushing, as compared with toothbrushing alone or toothbrushing and flossing for the prevention and control of periodontal diseases, dental plaque and dental caries.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 7 March 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 2), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 7 March 2013), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 7 March 2013), CINAHL via EBSCO (1980 to 7 March 2013), LILACS via BIREME (1982 to 7 March 2013), ZETOC Conference Proceedings (1980 to 7 March 2013) and Web of Science Conference Proceedings (1990 to 7 March 2013). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (http://clinicaltrials.gov) and the metaRegister of Controlled Trials (http://www.controlled-trials.com/mrct/) for ongoing trials to 7 March 2013. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (including split-mouth design, cross-over and cluster-randomised trials) of dentate adult patients. The interventions were a combination of toothbrushing and any interdental brushing procedure compared with toothbrushing only or toothbrushing and flossing.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors assessed each of the included studies to confirm eligibility, assessed risk of bias and extracted data using a piloted data extraction form. We calculated standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for continuous outcomes where different scales were used to assess an outcome. We attempted to extract data on adverse effects of interventions. Where data were missing or unclear we attempted to contact study authors to obtain further information.

MAIN RESULTS

There were seven studies (total 354 participants analysed) included in this review. We assessed one study as being low, three studies as being high and three studies as being at unclear risk of bias. Studies only reported the clinical outcome gingivitis and plaque data, with no studies providing data on many of the outcomes: periodontitis, caries, halitosis and quality of life. Three studies reported that no adverse events were observed or reported during the study. Two other studies provided some data on adverse events but we were unable to pool the data due to lack of detail. Two studies did not report whether adverse events occurred. Interdental brushing in addition to toothbrushing, as compared with toothbrushing alone Only one high risk of bias study (62 participants in analysis) looked at this comparison and there was very low-quality evidence for a reduction in gingivitis (0 to 4 scale, mean in control): mean difference (MD) 0.53 (95% CI 0.23 to 0.83) and plaque (0 to 5 scale): MD 0.95 (95% CI 0.56 to 1.34) at one month, favouring of use of interdental brushes. This represents a 34% reduction in gingivitis and a 32% reduction in plaque. Interdental brushing in addition to toothbrushing, as compared with toothbrushing and flossing Seven studies provided data showing a reduction in gingivitis in favour of interdental brushing at one month: SMD -0.53 (95% CI -0.81 to -0.24, seven studies, 326 participants, low-quality evidence). This translates to a 52% reduction in gingivitis (Eastman Bleeding Index). Although a high effect size in the same direction was observed at three months (SMD -1.98, 95% CI -5.42 to 1.47, two studies, 107 participants, very low quality), the confidence interval was wide and did not exclude the possibility of no difference. There was insufficient evidence to claim a benefit for either interdental brushing or flossing for reducing plaque (SMD at one month 0.10, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.33, seven studies, 326 participants, low-quality evidence) and insufficient evidence at three months (SMD -2.14, 95% CI -5.25 to 0.97, two studies, 107 participants very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Only one study looked at whether toothbrushing with interdental brushing was better than toothbrushing alone, and there was very low-quality evidence for a reduction in gingivitis and plaque at one month. There is also low-quality evidence from seven studies that interdental brushing reduces gingivitis when compared with flossing, but these results were only found at one month. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether interdental brushing reduced or increased levels of plaque when compared to flossing.

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.

Effectiveness of different interdental brushes on cleaning the interproximal surfaces of teeth and implants: a randomized controlled, double-blind cross-over study

OBJECTIVES

To compare the interproximal cleansing efficacy of the novel, waist-shaped Circum brush (Topcaredent, Switzerland; CB) with that of a straight soft interdental brush (IB) (TePe, Sweden; SB) on posterior surfaces.

MATERIAL & METHODS

Eight patients after completion of initial periodontal therapy abolished oral hygiene for 3 days. Baseline plaque scores (PlI, Silness & Löe ) were assessed on eight surfaces of all premolars and molars. Subsequently, an instructed nurse applied at random one of the two IB, three times per interdental space . Following this, registration of the PlI was repeated by the same blinded examiner. After a 2-week recovery, patients abolished oral hygiene practices for another 3 days. Again, pre-and post-brushing PlI were recorded by the same examiner. The second IB was now applied.

RESULTS

Patient mean PlI and site PlI were evaluated before and after application of the SB or CB respectively. Paired t-tests were performed to yield statistically significant differences. The reduction of biofilm from before to after the use of the IB on a subject basis was highly significant (P < 0.0001). The mean PlI after the use of the CB was significantly lower than after the use of the SB (P < 0.0001). Comparing the PlI of the line angles (MB, ML, DB, DL), significantly more biofilm had been removed by applying CB compared with SB (P < 0.0001). Moreover, comparing the PlI of the buccal (MB, DB) or the lingual line angles (DL, ML) yielded a significantly higher reduction of biofilm in favour of the CB (P < 0.0001). The reduction of the PlI in the mid-interproximal portion, both mesially and distally did not differ significantly between CB and ST. No biofilm reduction was seen on the buccal sites with either IB.

CONCLUSION

The application of the waist-shaped Circum IB resulted in significantly lower PlI scores than the use of a straight IB. This was predominantly due to the higher cleansing effect of the waist-shaped CB on the buccal and lingual line angles.

An introduction to latent growth curve modelling for longitudinal continuous data in dental research

Many studies in dental research are based on repeated measurements of several continuous variables. Statistical analyses of such data require advanced methods to explore the complexity of information within the data. Currently, the most frequently adopted approach is to undertake multiple univariate tests. Occasionally, more advanced and sophisticated statistical methodologies, such as multilevel modelling and generalized estimating equation, have been used. In the last decade, a novel statistical methodology known as latent growth curve modelling has been developed in the social sciences. Latent growth curve modelling can be considered a special application of structural equation modelling and is generally conducted using structural equation modelling software. Recent development of statistical theory shows that latent growth curve modelling is equivalent to multilevel modelling, and both approaches yield identical results. However, in some study designs latent growth curve modelling can provide a more flexible framework of statistical modelling than multilevel modelling and generalized estimating equation for longitudinal data. The aim of this article was to present a non-technical introduction to latent growth curve modelling for dental researchers. The emphasis was on conceptual understanding, rather than mathematical rigor, so path diagrams were used for visual presentations of various statistical models. When properly applied, latent growth curve modelling has great potential to give new directions for future longitudinal dental research.

The efficacy of dental floss in addition to a toothbrush on plaque and parameters of gingival inflammation: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this study was to assess systematically the adjunctive effect of both flossing and toothbrushing versus toothbrushing alone on plaque and gingivitis.

MATERIALS

The MEDLINE and Cochrane Central register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) databases were searched through December 2007 to identify appropriate studies. The variables of plaque and gingivitis were selected as outcomes.

RESULTS

Independent screening of titles and abstracts of 1166 MEDLINE-Pubmed and 187 Cochrane papers resulted in 11 publications that met the eligibility criteria. Mean values and SD were collected by data extraction. Descriptive comparisons are presented for brushing alone or brushing and flossing. A greater part of the studies did not show a benefit for floss on plaque and clinical parameters of gingivitis. A meta-analysis was performed for the plaque index and gingival index.

CONCLUSIONS

The dental professional should determine, on an individual patient basis, whether high-quality flossing is an achievable goal. In light of the results of this comprehensive literature search and critical analysis, it is concluded that a routine instruction to use floss is not supported by scientific evidence.

Predicting transitions from preintentional, intentional and actional stages of change

Stage theories of health behavior change assume that individuals pass through qualitatively different stages on their way to the adoption of health behaviors. Three common stages (preintention, intention and action) can be defined by stage transitions included in current stage theories and supported by evidence. The present study examines whether transitions between these stages can be predicted by social cognition variables derived from prevailing health behavior theories. At two points in time, the motivation for interdental hygiene behaviors and oral self-care was assessed in 288 participants recruited in dental practices. Stage progression and regression over time were analyzed using discriminant function analysis. Progression from preintention to intention was predicted by action planning, whereas coping planning and self-efficacy predicted transitions from intention. Regression from action was predicted by self-efficacy. Results support the distinction of three common stages. Findings are discussed in terms of their contribution to health behavior theory.

Direct and indirect effects of interdental hygiene in a clinical trial

Many randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in dental research test the efficacy of interventions on more than one outcome variable. Univariate methods, such as the t test or analysis of covariance, cannot evaluate the efficacy of interventions on multiple outcomes simultaneously. The aim of this study was to use structural equation modeling (SEM) to re-analyze a RCT, comparing the effects of pre-curved interdental brushes and flossing on probing pocket depth (PPD), plaque indices, and bleeding on probing (BOP) measured at baseline, intermediate, and final examinations. Results of SEM showed that the observed greater reduction in PPD and BOP in persons using interdental brushing than in those flossing is due mainly to the greater efficiency in plaque removal with the interdental brushes (indirect effect) rather than to the compression of the interdental papillae (direct effect). In contrast, smokers showed less BOP at baseline but also less improvement in BOP through direct effects.