A Randomized, Parallel Design Study to Evaluate the Effects of Different Oral Cleaning Modalities on Gingivitis and Plaque After a 6-Week Period of Home Use.

JingRu Li, Farah Mirza, Pin-Wen Wang, Krista Argosino, Kimberly Milleman, Jeffery Milleman, Marilyn Ward
{"title":"A Randomized, Parallel Design Study to Evaluate the Effects of Different Oral Cleaning Modalities on Gingivitis and Plaque After a 6-Week Period of Home Use.","authors":"JingRu Li, Farah Mirza, Pin-Wen Wang, Krista Argosino, Kimberly Milleman, Jeffery Milleman, Marilyn Ward","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The study objective was to evaluate the effect of different interdental oral cleaning modalities on gingivitis and plaque following a 6-week period of home use. This was a randomized, parallel, examiner-blinded study. Study subjects were routine manual toothbrush (MTB) users with moderate to severe gingivitis, aged 18 to 65 years. Subjects were required to have a gingival bleeding score of ≥1 on at least 50 gingival sites per the Gingival Bleeding Index (GBI) and to have a minimum average plaque score of ≥0.6 per the Rustogi Modified Navy Plaque Index (RMNPI) following a 3- to 6-hour plaque accumulation period. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of four groups based on the oral care cleaning modality: (1) NON group: MTB alone, (2) FLS group: MTB plus string floss, (3) MPF group: MTB plus a Philips® Sonicare® Power Flosser with the Quad Stream nozzle, or (4) PPF group: Philips Sonicare power toothbrush plus the power flosser. Safety and efficacy measures (Modified Gingival Index [MGI], GBI, and RMNPI) were assessed at baseline, 2 weeks, and 6 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the reduction in gingival inflammation from baseline to week 6 as measured by the MGI. A total of 260 subjects were randomized and 256 subjects completed the study. The adjusted mean percent reduction in gingival inflammation from baseline to week 6 was 14.90% for the NON group, 13.16% for the FLS group, 33.51% for the MPF group, and 49.30% for the PPF group. Pairwise comparisons indicated that both the PPF and MPF groups were statistically significantly different from both the NON and FLS groups. In conclusion, use of either the Philips Sonicare power toothbrush with the Philips Sonicare Power Flosser or an MTB with the Philips Sonicare Power Flosser was statistically superior to an MTB alone and an MTB used with string floss in reducing gingival inflammation following 6 weeks of home use.</p>","PeriodicalId":72651,"journal":{"name":"Compendium of continuing education in dentistry (Jamesburg, N.J. : 1995)","volume":"45 Suppl 1","pages":"6-9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Compendium of continuing education in dentistry (Jamesburg, N.J. : 1995)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","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

The study objective was to evaluate the effect of different interdental oral cleaning modalities on gingivitis and plaque following a 6-week period of home use. This was a randomized, parallel, examiner-blinded study. Study subjects were routine manual toothbrush (MTB) users with moderate to severe gingivitis, aged 18 to 65 years. Subjects were required to have a gingival bleeding score of ≥1 on at least 50 gingival sites per the Gingival Bleeding Index (GBI) and to have a minimum average plaque score of ≥0.6 per the Rustogi Modified Navy Plaque Index (RMNPI) following a 3- to 6-hour plaque accumulation period. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of four groups based on the oral care cleaning modality: (1) NON group: MTB alone, (2) FLS group: MTB plus string floss, (3) MPF group: MTB plus a Philips® Sonicare® Power Flosser with the Quad Stream nozzle, or (4) PPF group: Philips Sonicare power toothbrush plus the power flosser. Safety and efficacy measures (Modified Gingival Index [MGI], GBI, and RMNPI) were assessed at baseline, 2 weeks, and 6 weeks. The primary efficacy endpoint was the reduction in gingival inflammation from baseline to week 6 as measured by the MGI. A total of 260 subjects were randomized and 256 subjects completed the study. The adjusted mean percent reduction in gingival inflammation from baseline to week 6 was 14.90% for the NON group, 13.16% for the FLS group, 33.51% for the MPF group, and 49.30% for the PPF group. Pairwise comparisons indicated that both the PPF and MPF groups were statistically significantly different from both the NON and FLS groups. In conclusion, use of either the Philips Sonicare power toothbrush with the Philips Sonicare Power Flosser or an MTB with the Philips Sonicare Power Flosser was statistically superior to an MTB alone and an MTB used with string floss in reducing gingival inflammation following 6 weeks of home use.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
一项随机、平行设计的研究,评估不同口腔清洁方式在家庭使用 6 周后对牙龈炎和牙菌斑的影响。
研究目的是评估不同的牙间口腔清洁方式在家庭使用 6 周后对牙龈炎和牙菌斑的影响。这是一项随机、平行、考官盲法研究。研究对象为患有中度至重度牙龈炎的常规手动牙刷(MTB)使用者,年龄在 18 岁至 65 岁之间。根据牙龈出血指数(GBI),受试者至少有 50 个牙龈部位的牙龈出血评分≥1 分;根据 Rustogi 改良海军牙菌斑指数(RMNPI),受试者经过 3 到 6 小时的牙菌斑累积期后,牙菌斑平均评分至少≥0.6 分。根据口腔护理清洁方式,受试者被随机分配到四组中的一组:(1)NON 组:(2) FLS 组:(3) MPF 组:MTB 加带 Quad Stream 喷嘴的飞利浦® Sonicare® 强力冲牙器,或 (4) PPF 组:飞利浦 Sonicare 电动牙刷加电动冲牙器。在基线、2 周和 6 周时对安全性和疗效(改良牙龈指数 [MGI]、GBI 和 RMNPI)进行评估。主要疗效终点是通过 MGI 测定牙龈炎症从基线到第 6 周的减轻程度。共有 260 名受试者被随机分配,256 名受试者完成了研究。从基线到第 6 周,NON 组牙龈炎症的调整后平均减少百分比为 14.90%,FLS 组为 13.16%,MPF 组为 33.51%,PPF 组为 49.30%。配对比较表明,PPF 组和 MPF 组与 NON 组和 FLS 组在统计学上有显著差异。总之,在家中使用飞利浦 Sonicare 电动牙刷和飞利浦 Sonicare 强力冲牙器或 MTB 和飞利浦 Sonicare 强力冲牙器 6 周后,在减少牙龈炎症方面,飞利浦 Sonicare 电动牙刷和飞利浦 Sonicare 强力冲牙器在统计学上优于单独使用 MTB 和使用 MTB 和线牙线。
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
A Conservative Restorative Approach for a Patient With Cleft Palate: Replacing a Lateral Incisor and Enhancing Esthetics. A New Era for Indirect Restorations With CAD/CAM and 3D Printing Technologies. Alpha Omega: Envisioning the Next Generation of Leaders. Digital Workflow for a Definitive Implant-Supported Hybrid Prosthesis. Leveraging Digital Smile Design Technology in Esthetic Restorative Dentistry.
×
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