Manual vs. interactive power toothbrush on plaque removal and salivary Streptococcus mutans and Lactobacillus casei levels : Single-center, examiner-blinded, randomized clinical trial in orthodontic patients.

IF 1.3 4区 医学 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics-Fortschritte Der Kieferorthopadie Pub Date : 2024-05-01 Epub Date: 2023-06-02 DOI:10.1007/s00056-023-00470-6
Tuğba Erden, Hasan Camcı
{"title":"Manual vs. interactive power toothbrush on plaque removal and salivary Streptococcus mutans and Lactobacillus casei levels : Single-center, examiner-blinded, randomized clinical trial in orthodontic patients.","authors":"Tuğba Erden, Hasan Camcı","doi":"10.1007/s00056-023-00470-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The purpose of this study was to compare efficacy of a manual and an interactive power toothbrush in orthodontic patients by assessing periodontal indexes and bacterial content of saliva samples.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Forty patients (20 females, 20 males; age range 12-18 years) with fixed orthodontic appliances were included in the study. The patients were randomly divided into two groups in a 1:1 ratio using sealed envelopes: group 1: manual toothbrush (Oral‑B Ortho Brush, Procter&Gamble Company, Dublin, Ireland), group 2: interactive power toothbrush (Oral‑B Genius 8900, Procter&Gamble Company, Marktheidenfeld, Germany). All participants were given the same toothpaste (Colgate Triple Action, Colgate-Palmolive, New York, NY, USA). The brushing procedure for each patient was described in detail, both orally and visually, utilizing a video demonstration. Plaque and bleeding index scores were recorded for both the lower and upper arches at the beginning of the study (T0) and at weeks 6 (T1) and 12 (T2). In addition, the numbers of Streptococcus (S.) mutans, Lactobacillus (L.) casei, and Porphyromonas (P.) gingivalis bacteria were determined using a real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis in saliva samples collected at T0, T1, and T2 times. Mann-Whitney U test and Student's t test were used to compare data between the groups, and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Friedman tests were used to compare data from different time intervals for each group.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Plaque index values were greater in group 1 at T1 and T2, although there was no difference between the groups at T0. The gingival index scores of both groups were similar at T0, T1, and T2. While group 2 had a larger number of salivary S. mutans at T0 and T2, there was no significant difference between the groups at T1. At all three time points, there was no significant difference in salivary L. casei levels between the groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although the interactive power toothbrush was more effective at removing plaque than the manual toothbrush, the results of the gingival index did not reflect the plaque scores. The number of certain salivary bacteria and brush type did not appear to have a clear relationship.</p>","PeriodicalId":54776,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics-Fortschritte Der Kieferorthopadie","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics-Fortschritte Der Kieferorthopadie","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00056-023-00470-6","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/6/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: The purpose of this study was to compare efficacy of a manual and an interactive power toothbrush in orthodontic patients by assessing periodontal indexes and bacterial content of saliva samples.

Methods: Forty patients (20 females, 20 males; age range 12-18 years) with fixed orthodontic appliances were included in the study. The patients were randomly divided into two groups in a 1:1 ratio using sealed envelopes: group 1: manual toothbrush (Oral‑B Ortho Brush, Procter&Gamble Company, Dublin, Ireland), group 2: interactive power toothbrush (Oral‑B Genius 8900, Procter&Gamble Company, Marktheidenfeld, Germany). All participants were given the same toothpaste (Colgate Triple Action, Colgate-Palmolive, New York, NY, USA). The brushing procedure for each patient was described in detail, both orally and visually, utilizing a video demonstration. Plaque and bleeding index scores were recorded for both the lower and upper arches at the beginning of the study (T0) and at weeks 6 (T1) and 12 (T2). In addition, the numbers of Streptococcus (S.) mutans, Lactobacillus (L.) casei, and Porphyromonas (P.) gingivalis bacteria were determined using a real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis in saliva samples collected at T0, T1, and T2 times. Mann-Whitney U test and Student's t test were used to compare data between the groups, and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Friedman tests were used to compare data from different time intervals for each group.

Results: Plaque index values were greater in group 1 at T1 and T2, although there was no difference between the groups at T0. The gingival index scores of both groups were similar at T0, T1, and T2. While group 2 had a larger number of salivary S. mutans at T0 and T2, there was no significant difference between the groups at T1. At all three time points, there was no significant difference in salivary L. casei levels between the groups.

Conclusions: Although the interactive power toothbrush was more effective at removing plaque than the manual toothbrush, the results of the gingival index did not reflect the plaque scores. The number of certain salivary bacteria and brush type did not appear to have a clear relationship.

Abstract Image

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
手动牙刷与交互式电动牙刷对牙菌斑清除、唾液中变异链球菌和干酪乳杆菌水平的影响:针对正畸患者的单中心、检查者盲法随机临床试验。
引言本研究旨在通过评估牙周指数和唾液样本中的细菌含量,比较手动牙刷和交互式电动牙刷对正畸患者的功效:研究对象包括 40 名使用固定正畸装置的患者(20 名女性,20 名男性;年龄在 12-18 岁之间)。用密封信封将患者按 1:1 的比例随机分为两组:第 1 组:手动牙刷(Oral-B Ortho Brush,Procter&Gamble 公司,爱尔兰都柏林);第 2 组:交互式电动牙刷(Oral-B Genius 8900,Procter&Gamble 公司,德国 Marktheidenfeld)。所有参与者均使用同一种牙膏(高露洁三效牙膏,高露洁-棕榄公司,美国纽约)。通过视频演示,对每位患者的刷牙过程进行了详细的口头和视觉描述。在研究开始时(T0)、第 6 周(T1)和第 12 周(T2),记录下牙弓和上牙弓的牙菌斑和出血指数。此外,在 T0、T1 和 T2 采集的唾液样本中,使用实时聚合酶链式反应 (PCR) 分析方法测定了变异链球菌、乳酸杆菌和牙龈卟啉单胞菌的数量。组间数据比较采用 Mann-Whitney U 检验和 Student's t 检验,各组不同时间间隔的数据比较采用单因素方差分析(ANOVA)和 Friedman 检验:结果:在 T1 和 T2 期,1 组的牙菌斑指数值更大,但在 T0 期,组间无差异。两组在 T0、T1 和 T2 的牙龈指数评分相似。虽然第二组在 T0 和 T2 时唾液中的变异沙门氏菌数量较多,但在 T1 时两组间无明显差异。在所有三个时间点,各组之间唾液中的干酪乳杆菌含量均无明显差异:结论:虽然交互式电动牙刷比手动牙刷能更有效地清除牙菌斑,但牙龈指数的结果并不能反映牙菌斑的得分。某些唾液细菌的数量与牙刷类型似乎没有明显的关系。
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
CiteScore
3.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
64
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Orofacial Orthopedics provides orthodontists and dentists who are also actively interested in orthodontics, whether in university clinics or private practice, with highly authoritative and up-to-date information based on experimental and clinical research. The journal is one of the leading publications for the promulgation of the results of original work both in the areas of scientific and clinical orthodontics and related areas. All articles undergo peer review before publication. The German Society of Orthodontics (DGKFO) also publishes in the journal important communications, statements and announcements.
期刊最新文献
Correction to: Influence of functional and esthetic expectations on orthodontic pain. Mitteilungen der DGKFO. Dentoskeletal effects of clear aligner vs twin block-a short-term study of functional appliances. Evaluation and comparison of planum clival angle in three malocclusion groups : A CBCT study. Survival rates of mandibular fixed retainers: comparison of a tube-type retainer and conventional multistrand retainers : A prospective randomized clinical trial.
×
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