青少年正畸患者手动与动力刷牙的长期疗效比较:一项单中心、平行设计的随机临床试验。

IF 2.8 3区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE European journal of orthodontics Pub Date : 2023-11-30 DOI:10.1093/ejo/cjad042
Ama Johal, Muftah Shagmani, Omar Alfuraih, Ian Arad
{"title":"青少年正畸患者手动与动力刷牙的长期疗效比较:一项单中心、平行设计的随机临床试验。","authors":"Ama Johal, Muftah Shagmani, Omar Alfuraih, Ian Arad","doi":"10.1093/ejo/cjad042","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>To-date, there is no evidence comparing the long-term efficacy of powered and manual toothbrushes in adolescents undergoing fixed appliance treatment. The trial compared the efficacy of manual versus powered toothbrush in controlling plaque and gingival health in patients undergoing fixed treatment in respect of both the short- and long-term.</p><p><strong>Trial design: </strong>This was a randomized, parallel, controlled single-blind clinical trial, undertaken in a hospital setting, for which the consolidated standards of reporting trials guidelines were followed.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ninety-two adolescent participants planned to undergo fixed appliance therapy, were randomly assigned to either a manual or powered toothbrush, with allocation concealment. The outcome measures were plaque and gingival indices and bleeding on probing, assessed at baseline (prior to fixed appliance), one-, six- and 12-months.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The final sample included 84 participants, aged 12-18 (M=14.1, SD=1.93) years, with 40 (47%) were using a manual and 44 (52%) a powered toothbrush. The intervention (powered vs. manual toothbrush) itself appeared insignificant with regards to the gingival index (GI) (95%CI -0.1 - 0.03; P=0.26), plaque index (PI) (95%CI -0.13 - 0.14; P=0.93) and bleeding on probing (BoP) (95%CI -0.03 - 0.03; P=0.98) at any of the time points assessed. However, periodontal health indicators and plaque control significantly worsened (p<0.01), over the 12-month follow-up period, following placement of the fixed appliances placement.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Whilst no differences were found between manual and powered toothbrushes in controlling plaque and gingival health, in participants undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment, both were suboptimal and highlighted the need for greater patient support and monitoring.</p><p><strong>Trial registration details: </strong>https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN74268923 Trial funding: Colgate-Palmolive (USA).</p>","PeriodicalId":11989,"journal":{"name":"European journal of orthodontics","volume":" ","pages":"808-817"},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10803043/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Long-term comparison of the efficacy of manual versus powered tooth brushing in adolescent orthodontic patients: a single-centre, parallel design randomized clinical trial.\",\"authors\":\"Ama Johal, Muftah Shagmani, Omar Alfuraih, Ian Arad\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/ejo/cjad042\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background and objectives: </strong>To-date, there is no evidence comparing the long-term efficacy of powered and manual toothbrushes in adolescents undergoing fixed appliance treatment. The trial compared the efficacy of manual versus powered toothbrush in controlling plaque and gingival health in patients undergoing fixed treatment in respect of both the short- and long-term.</p><p><strong>Trial design: </strong>This was a randomized, parallel, controlled single-blind clinical trial, undertaken in a hospital setting, for which the consolidated standards of reporting trials guidelines were followed.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Ninety-two adolescent participants planned to undergo fixed appliance therapy, were randomly assigned to either a manual or powered toothbrush, with allocation concealment. The outcome measures were plaque and gingival indices and bleeding on probing, assessed at baseline (prior to fixed appliance), one-, six- and 12-months.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The final sample included 84 participants, aged 12-18 (M=14.1, SD=1.93) years, with 40 (47%) were using a manual and 44 (52%) a powered toothbrush. The intervention (powered vs. manual toothbrush) itself appeared insignificant with regards to the gingival index (GI) (95%CI -0.1 - 0.03; P=0.26), plaque index (PI) (95%CI -0.13 - 0.14; P=0.93) and bleeding on probing (BoP) (95%CI -0.03 - 0.03; P=0.98) at any of the time points assessed. However, periodontal health indicators and plaque control significantly worsened (p<0.01), over the 12-month follow-up period, following placement of the fixed appliances placement.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Whilst no differences were found between manual and powered toothbrushes in controlling plaque and gingival health, in participants undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment, both were suboptimal and highlighted the need for greater patient support and monitoring.</p><p><strong>Trial registration details: </strong>https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN74268923 Trial funding: Colgate-Palmolive (USA).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":11989,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European journal of orthodontics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"808-817\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-30\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10803043/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European journal of orthodontics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjad042\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European journal of orthodontics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/ejo/cjad042","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景和目的:迄今为止,尚无证据比较电动牙刷和手动牙刷在接受固定矫治器治疗的青少年中的长期疗效。该试验比较了手动牙刷和电动牙刷在短期和长期治疗中控制牙菌斑和牙龈健康的效果。试验设计:这是一项随机、平行、对照的单盲临床试验,在医院环境中进行,遵循试验报告的统一标准指南。方法:92名青少年参与者计划接受固定矫治器治疗,随机分配使用手动牙刷或电动牙刷,分配隐藏。结果测量是牙菌斑和牙龈指数以及探测时的出血,在基线(固定矫治器之前)、1个月、6个月和12个月进行评估。结果:最终样本包括84名参与者,年龄在12-18岁(M=14.1, SD=1.93)岁,其中40人(47%)使用手动牙刷,44人(52%)使用电动牙刷。干预(电动牙刷vs手动牙刷)本身对牙龈指数(GI)的影响不显著(95%CI -0.1 - 0.03;P=0.26),斑块指数(PI) (95%CI -0.13 - 0.14;P=0.93)和探查出血(BoP) (95%CI -0.03 ~ 0.03;P=0.98)。然而,牙周健康指标和菌斑控制明显恶化(结论:虽然手动牙刷和电动牙刷在控制菌斑和牙龈健康方面没有差异,但在接受固定正畸治疗的参与者中,两者都不是最佳的,这突出了需要更多的患者支持和监测。试验注册详情:https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN74268923试验资助:高露洁棕榄(美国)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Long-term comparison of the efficacy of manual versus powered tooth brushing in adolescent orthodontic patients: a single-centre, parallel design randomized clinical trial.

Background and objectives: To-date, there is no evidence comparing the long-term efficacy of powered and manual toothbrushes in adolescents undergoing fixed appliance treatment. The trial compared the efficacy of manual versus powered toothbrush in controlling plaque and gingival health in patients undergoing fixed treatment in respect of both the short- and long-term.

Trial design: This was a randomized, parallel, controlled single-blind clinical trial, undertaken in a hospital setting, for which the consolidated standards of reporting trials guidelines were followed.

Methods: Ninety-two adolescent participants planned to undergo fixed appliance therapy, were randomly assigned to either a manual or powered toothbrush, with allocation concealment. The outcome measures were plaque and gingival indices and bleeding on probing, assessed at baseline (prior to fixed appliance), one-, six- and 12-months.

Results: The final sample included 84 participants, aged 12-18 (M=14.1, SD=1.93) years, with 40 (47%) were using a manual and 44 (52%) a powered toothbrush. The intervention (powered vs. manual toothbrush) itself appeared insignificant with regards to the gingival index (GI) (95%CI -0.1 - 0.03; P=0.26), plaque index (PI) (95%CI -0.13 - 0.14; P=0.93) and bleeding on probing (BoP) (95%CI -0.03 - 0.03; P=0.98) at any of the time points assessed. However, periodontal health indicators and plaque control significantly worsened (p<0.01), over the 12-month follow-up period, following placement of the fixed appliances placement.

Conclusion: Whilst no differences were found between manual and powered toothbrushes in controlling plaque and gingival health, in participants undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment, both were suboptimal and highlighted the need for greater patient support and monitoring.

Trial registration details: https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN74268923 Trial funding: Colgate-Palmolive (USA).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
European journal of orthodontics
European journal of orthodontics 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
7.70%
发文量
71
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Orthodontics publishes papers of excellence on all aspects of orthodontics including craniofacial development and growth. The emphasis of the journal is on full research papers. Succinct and carefully prepared papers are favoured in terms of impact as well as readability.
期刊最新文献
Clinical risk factors caused by third molar levelling following extraction of a mandibular second molar. Does incisor inclination change during orthodontic treatment affect gingival thickness and the width of keratinized gingiva? A prospective controlled study. Roles of B-cell lymphoma 6 in orthodontic tooth movement of rat molars. Influence of genetic and environmental factors on transverse growth. The effect of micro-osteoperforation (MOP) in molar distalization treatments: an exploratory systematic review and meta-analysis of RCTs.
×
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