The Efficacy and Safety of Oral Irrigator on the Control of Dental Plaque and Gingivitis: A Randomized, Single-Blind, Parallel-Group Clinical Trial

Oral Irrigation Devices: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVES

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

A Comparative Review of Water Flossers in Periodontal Therapy

This study investigated the efficacy of water flossers (WFs), devices used to irrigate the interdental and subgingival areas, compared to other interdental care methods, in the management of periodontal disease. A computerized PubMed search was conducted by the author, encompassing the years 1962 to 2023. The year 1962 was selected due to it being the introduction of the first WF. Keywords included "oral irrigator", "efficacy," and "water flossers." The review provided a broad comparative assessment of WFs, rather than an exhaustive detailed article review. We discussed the history and evolution of commercially available WFs and introduced a novel classification system. The research also evaluated the performance of WFs in comparison to traditional and novel interdental care methods, focusing on crucial clinical parameters such as plaque removal efficiency and reduction in gingival inflammation. The results of the study reveal that WFs appear to be superior in the management of periodontal disease and have demonstrated effectiveness in a variety of indices. However, it's worth noting that the author did not statistically analyze any of the data. We identified gaps in the literature and found opportunities for further clinical studies. These findings hold implications for optimal periodontal disease prevention and management, addressing the evolving landscape of oral care practices.

Efficacy of water flossing on clinical parameters of inflammation and plaque: A 4-week randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

The primary prevention of periodontitis is controlling gingivitis daily. The study objective was to compare the efficacy of a pulsating water flosser to a pulsating water flosser infused with air microbubbles on clinical signs of inflammation and plaque.

METHODS

One hundred and five participants were enrolled in this single-blind, single-centre, parallel, 4-week, IRB/IEC-approved clinical trial. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three groups: water flosser (WF) plus manual toothbrush, water flosser infused with microbubbles of air (MBWF) plus manual toothbrush, or dental floss (DF) plus manual toothbrush. Bleeding on probing (BOP), Modified Gingival Index (MGI) and Rustogi Modification Navy Plaque Index (RMNPI) scores were recorded at baseline, 2 and 4 weeks.

RESULTS

All participants completed the study (n = 105). All groups showed a statistically significant reduction for BOP, MGI and RMNPI at 4 weeks (p < 0.05, except DF marginal RMNPI). The WF group showed a statistically significant greater reduction in whole mouth BOP (0.41) compared to MBWF (0.32) and DF (0.19). This was also true for MGI (0.37, 0.30 and 0.20, respectively) and RMNPI (0.13, 0.11 and 0.06, respectively; p < 0.05 for all comparisons). No adverse events were reported.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrates that a manual toothbrush and water flosser, with or without microbubbles, is an effective oral care regimen for controlling gingivitis over 4 weeks.