Abstract
Background. Braces and micro-implants may serve as retention points for the dental plaque under the condition of insufficient everyday oral care, thus compromising oral hygiene level of orthodontic patients.
Objective. The assess changes of oral hygiene among orthodontic patients with braces and micro-implants during the use of adapted specifically-designed plaque-controlled regime of self-performed oral hygiene measures.
Material and Methods. Study group was formed out of 30 patients aged 18 to 50 years, who were planned to undergo orthodontic treatment with brace system and micro-implant. During the first month of orthodontic treatment patients used a toothbrush with thin bristles, during the second month – V-toothbrush, and during the third month – a two-row and monobundle toothbrush. The interdental hygiene was provided by the size-adjusted toothbrushes. Clinical assessment was provided with the use of hygienic indices (O’Leary, Green-Vermillion and Turesky).
Results. At the period of first month after orthodontic treatment initiation O’Leary index increased abruptly to 52.6±6.4%, which stands for unsatisfactory oral hygiene level. Values of Turesky and Green-Vermillion indices increased twofold after orthodontic appliance attachment, and after first month of treatment their values were 1.98±0.31, and 2.12±0.34 points, respectively; while after third month of treatment – 0.99±0.1 and 1.19±0.14, respectively.
Conclusions. Oral hygiene conditions were deteriorated among all patients, compared to the pre-treatment situation, which was caused by orthodontic appliances fixation. Oral hygiene of the patients with fixed orthodontic appliances should include usage of two-row toothbrush, which most efficiently clean the plaque above and under the brace arch; and a mono-bundle toothbrush for additional cleaning around brace locks, in gingival area, and around micro-implants.
Publisher
Ukrainian Public Scientific Society "Continuing Dental Education"
Reference33 articles.
1. Fernandez CC, Pereira CV, Luiz RR, Vieira AR, De Castro Costa M. Dental anomalies in different growth and skeletal malocclusion patterns. Angle Orthod. 2018;88(2):195-201. doi: 10.2319/071917-482.1
2. Bilge NH, Yeşiltepe S, Ağırman KT, Çağlayan F, Bilge OM. Investigation of prevalence of dental anomalies by using digital panoramic radiographs. Folia Morphol. 2018;77(2):323-8. doi: 10.5603/FM.a2017.0087
3. Alhammadi MS, Halboub E, Fayed MS, Labib A, El-Saaidi C. Global distribution of malocclusion traits: A systematic review. Dental Press J Orthod. 2018;23:40.e1-40.e10. doi: 10.1590/2177-6709.23.6.40.e1-10.onl
4. Lombardo G, Vena F, Negri P, Pagano S, Barilotti C, Paglia L, Colombo S, Orso M, Cianetti S. Worldwide prevalence of malocclusion in the different stages of dentition: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2020;21(2):115-22. doi: 10.23804/ejpd.2020.21.02.05
5. Khalaf K, Kheder W, El-Kishawi M, AlQahtani HA, Ghiasi FS, Alabdulkareem MN, Zahiri AN, Rahmani NI. The role of prosthetic, orthodontic and implant-supported rehabilitation in the management of secondary malocclusion to maxillofacial trauma-A systematic review. Saudi Dent J. 2021;33(4):177-83. doi: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2020.12.004