Çiğnenebilir, elektrikli ve manuel diş fırçalarının plak uzaklaştırma etkinliklerinin karşılaştırılması: Randomize klinik çalışma

Tuğba Yi̇ği̇t, F. Karaaslan, Umut Yi̇ği̇t, Ahu Di̇ki̇li̇taş
{"title":"Çiğnenebilir, elektrikli ve manuel diş fırçalarının plak uzaklaştırma etkinliklerinin karşılaştırılması: Randomize klinik çalışma","authors":"Tuğba Yi̇ği̇t, F. Karaaslan, Umut Yi̇ği̇t, Ahu Di̇ki̇li̇taş","doi":"10.22312/sdusbed.1279913","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: A comparative evaluation of the plaque removal efficacy of manual, electric, and chewable toothbrushes.\nMaterial-Method: Our randomized and examiner-blinded clinical study involved 90 dental students. The students were divided into three groups: manual, electric, and chewable toothbrush users. The plaque removal efficiency of the brushes was evaluated using the Turesky modification of the Quigley–Hein Index (TMQHI).\nResults: Ninety participants, consisting of 32 males and 58 females, aged between 21 and 23 years (average age 220.47) were included in the study. The mean TMQHI score before brushing was 2.4±0.49 in the manual brushing group, 1.81±0.61 in the electric toothbrush group, and 1.93±0.6 in the chewable brush group. The mean for the manual brushing group was thus higher than that of the other two groups (p<0.001). The mean TMQHI score after brushing was 1.37±0.43 in the manual brushing group, 0.91±0.52 in the electric toothbrush group, and 1.31±0.67 in the chewable brush group. The effectiveness of the chewable brush in plaque removal in all regions of the mouth was lower than that of the other two (p<0.001). There was no statistical difference between the manual and electric toothbrushes.\nConclusion: The plaque removal efficiency of the chewable toothbrush was found to be lower than that of the electric and manual toothbrushes.","PeriodicalId":448097,"journal":{"name":"SDÜ SAĞLIK BİLİMLERİ DERGİSİ","volume":"3 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SDÜ SAĞLIK BİLİMLERİ DERGİSİ","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.22312/sdusbed.1279913","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: A comparative evaluation of the plaque removal efficacy of manual, electric, and chewable toothbrushes. Material-Method: Our randomized and examiner-blinded clinical study involved 90 dental students. The students were divided into three groups: manual, electric, and chewable toothbrush users. The plaque removal efficiency of the brushes was evaluated using the Turesky modification of the Quigley–Hein Index (TMQHI). Results: Ninety participants, consisting of 32 males and 58 females, aged between 21 and 23 years (average age 220.47) were included in the study. The mean TMQHI score before brushing was 2.4±0.49 in the manual brushing group, 1.81±0.61 in the electric toothbrush group, and 1.93±0.6 in the chewable brush group. The mean for the manual brushing group was thus higher than that of the other two groups (p<0.001). The mean TMQHI score after brushing was 1.37±0.43 in the manual brushing group, 0.91±0.52 in the electric toothbrush group, and 1.31±0.67 in the chewable brush group. The effectiveness of the chewable brush in plaque removal in all regions of the mouth was lower than that of the other two (p<0.001). There was no statistical difference between the manual and electric toothbrushes. Conclusion: The plaque removal efficiency of the chewable toothbrush was found to be lower than that of the electric and manual toothbrushes.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
目的:对比评价手动牙刷、电动牙刷和咀嚼牙刷对牙菌斑的去除效果。材料-方法:本研究采用随机、检查者盲法对90名牙科学生进行临床研究。这些学生被分为三组:手动牙刷组、电动牙刷组和咀嚼牙刷组。采用Quigley-Hein指数(TMQHI)的Turesky修正法评估刷体的牙菌斑去除效率。结果:共纳入受试者90人,男32人,女58人,年龄21 ~ 23岁,平均年龄22岁0.47。刷前TMQHI平均评分手工刷组为2.4±0.49分,电动牙刷组为1.81±0.61分,咀嚼刷组为1.93±0.6分。因此,手动刷牙组的平均值高于其他两组(p<0.001)。刷后TMQHI平均评分手工刷组为1.37±0.43,电动牙刷组为0.91±0.52,咀嚼刷组为1.31±0.67。可咀嚼刷在口腔各区域的牙菌斑清除效果均低于其他两种牙刷(p<0.001)。手动牙刷和电动牙刷之间没有统计学差异。结论:咀嚼牙刷对牙菌斑的清除效率低于电动牙刷和手动牙刷。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
The Impact of Different Anterior Cruciate Ligament Status on Unicompartmental Knee Arthroplasty: Short Term Clinical and Functional Results Analysis of the State Archives Republican Archives Documents on Tuberculosis and Fight Against Tuberculosis in the Early Republican Period in Turkiye Haemodialysis Patients' Experiences on Complementary and Alternative Therapies: A Qualitative Study Enneagram Kişilik Tiplerinin Besin Seçimi ile İlişkisinin Araştırılması: Kesitsel Çalışma İmmünoterapi Gören Akciğer Kanserli Hastalarda Diyet Danışmanlığının Rolü
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1