Abstract
Abstract
Purpose
Our study aimed to evaluate the long-term concordance and acceptance when using powered devices for everyday oral hygiene routine and gingival health in patients showing papillary bleeding.
Patients and methods
Thirty-one participants were recruited at the dental clinic of the University Hospital of Cologne, Germany, over a 6-week duration. At baseline, a standard dental check-up was performed, including oral hygiene indices and documentation of oral hygiene devices used. The study consisted of two consecutive phases: the first (motivational trial) was designed to prove the effectiveness and safety of a microdroplet device and a powered toothbrush compared to dental floss and a manual toothbrush over a period of 4 weeks. The second (observational) phase began with all participants receiving the powered oral homecare devices. Participants were able to use their oral hygiene measures of choice over an unsupervised period of 1 year. All participants were then rescheduled for a routine dental check-up, where oral hygiene indices and oral hygiene devices used were reevaluated.
Results
After 1 year, 93.3% of participants stated they performed interdental cleaning on a regular basis (baseline 60.0%). The percentage using a powered toothbrush increased from 41.9% (baseline) to 90.0% after 1 year. Oral hygiene parameters had improved after both the motivational trial and observational phases compared to baseline (papillary bleeding index p = .000; Rustogi Modified Navy Plaque Index p < .05; Quigley-Hein Index p = .000).
Conclusion
In the long term, participants preferred using powered oral hygiene devices over the gold standard dental floss and manual toothbrush. Improved oral hygiene parameters after 1 year may indicate implementation of newly acquired oral-hygiene skills during the 4-week instruction phase.
Funder
Universitätsklinikum Köln
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference57 articles.
1. Chapple IL, Van der Weijden F, Doerfer C, et al. Primary prevention of periodontitis: managing gingivitis. J Clin Periodontol. 2015;42(Suppl 16):S71–76.
2. Chapple ILC. Time to take gum disease seriously. Br Dent J. 2022;232(6):360–1.
3. Zahnärzte IDZ, editor. Fünfte Deutsche Mundgesundheitsstudie (DMS V). Köln: Deutscher Zahnärzte Verlag DÄV; 2016. p. 35.
4. Harnacke D, Winterfeld T, Erhardt J, et al. What is the best predictor for oral cleanliness after brushing? Results from an observational cohort study. J Periodontol. 2015;86(1):101–7.
5. Winterfeld T, Schlueter N, Harnacke D, et al. Toothbrushing and flossing behaviour in young adults–a video observation. Clin Oral Investig. 2015;19(4):851–8.