三种牙间隙清洁方法对单种植体支持冠种植体周围健康维护的效果:随机临床试验

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Oral health & preventive dentistry Pub Date : 2024-01-15 DOI:10.3290/j.ohpd.b4854607
Hani S AlMoharib, Mansour H AlAskar, Essam A Abuthera, Khalid A Alshalhoub, Faisal K BinRokan, Nawaf S AlQahtani, Hossam W Almadhoon
{"title":"三种牙间隙清洁方法对单种植体支持冠种植体周围健康维护的效果:随机临床试验","authors":"Hani S AlMoharib, Mansour H AlAskar, Essam A Abuthera, Khalid A Alshalhoub, Faisal K BinRokan, Nawaf S AlQahtani, Hossam W Almadhoon","doi":"10.3290/j.ohpd.b4854607","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the effectiveness of an interproximal brush, a water flosser, and dental floss in removing plaque and reducing inflammation around implant-supported crowns.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A randomised controlled trial was conducted involving 45 participants with implant-supported single crowns. The participants were randomly assigned to three groups: interproximal brush, water flosser, and dental floss. Plaque index scores, gingival index scores, and interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels were assessed at baseline and after a two-week period. Statistical analysis was performed to compare the outcomes among the groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Following the second visit, improvements in plaque control were observed across all three interdental cleaning methods. The water flosser demonstrated a slight reduction in IL-6 levels (60.17 ± 3.07 vs 58.79 ± 4.04) compared to the initial visit, although this decrease was not statistically significant. Conversely, both the interdental brush and dental floss exhibited a slight increase in IL-6 levels at the second visit (60.73 ± 2.93 and 55.7 ± 10.64, respectively) compared to the mean at the first visit (58.38 ± 3.24 and 54.6 ± 2.22, respectively). Among the groups, only the interproximal brush demonstrated a statistically significant difference in IL-6 levels (p=0.008), while no statistically significant differences were observed in the dental floss and water flosser groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Within the study's limitations, our findings suggest that all three methods of interdental cleaning effectively improve plaque control and reduce gingival inflammation. However, using a water flosser appears to reduce inflammation more effectively, highlighting its potential advantage over the other two methods. Further research is needed to evaluate the long-term efficacy and impact of these methods on implant survival.</p>","PeriodicalId":19696,"journal":{"name":"Oral health & preventive dentistry","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy of Three Interdental Cleaning Methods for Peri-Implant Health Maintenance of Single Implant-Supported Crowns: A Randomised Clinical Trial.\",\"authors\":\"Hani S AlMoharib, Mansour H AlAskar, Essam A Abuthera, Khalid A Alshalhoub, Faisal K BinRokan, Nawaf S AlQahtani, Hossam W Almadhoon\",\"doi\":\"10.3290/j.ohpd.b4854607\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>To compare the effectiveness of an interproximal brush, a water flosser, and dental floss in removing plaque and reducing inflammation around implant-supported crowns.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>A randomised controlled trial was conducted involving 45 participants with implant-supported single crowns. The participants were randomly assigned to three groups: interproximal brush, water flosser, and dental floss. Plaque index scores, gingival index scores, and interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels were assessed at baseline and after a two-week period. Statistical analysis was performed to compare the outcomes among the groups.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Following the second visit, improvements in plaque control were observed across all three interdental cleaning methods. The water flosser demonstrated a slight reduction in IL-6 levels (60.17 ± 3.07 vs 58.79 ± 4.04) compared to the initial visit, although this decrease was not statistically significant. Conversely, both the interdental brush and dental floss exhibited a slight increase in IL-6 levels at the second visit (60.73 ± 2.93 and 55.7 ± 10.64, respectively) compared to the mean at the first visit (58.38 ± 3.24 and 54.6 ± 2.22, respectively). Among the groups, only the interproximal brush demonstrated a statistically significant difference in IL-6 levels (p=0.008), while no statistically significant differences were observed in the dental floss and water flosser groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Within the study's limitations, our findings suggest that all three methods of interdental cleaning effectively improve plaque control and reduce gingival inflammation. However, using a water flosser appears to reduce inflammation more effectively, highlighting its potential advantage over the other two methods. Further research is needed to evaluate the long-term efficacy and impact of these methods on implant survival.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19696,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Oral health & preventive dentistry\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Oral health & preventive dentistry\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3290/j.ohpd.b4854607\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oral health & preventive dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3290/j.ohpd.b4854607","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:比较近端间刷子、水冲牙器和牙线在清除种植牙冠周围菌斑和减少炎症方面的效果:我们进行了一项随机对照试验,共有 45 名种植单冠的患者参加。参与者被随机分配到三组:近心间刷、水冲牙器和牙线。分别在基线和两周后对牙菌斑指数评分、牙龈指数评分和白细胞介素-6(IL-6)水平进行评估。对各组的结果进行了统计分析比较:第二次就诊后,所有三种牙间清洁方法的牙菌斑控制情况都有所改善。与初次就诊时相比,水冲牙器的 IL-6 水平略有下降(60.17 ± 3.07 vs 58.79 ± 4.04),但下降幅度在统计学上并不显著。相反,牙间刷和牙线在第二次就诊时的 IL-6 水平(分别为 60.73 ± 2.93 和 55.7 ± 10.64)与第一次就诊时的平均水平(分别为 58.38 ± 3.24 和 54.6 ± 2.22)相比略有上升。在各组中,只有近端间刷组的IL-6水平差异有统计学意义(P=0.008),而牙线组和水冲牙器组的IL-6水平差异无统计学意义:在研究的局限性范围内,我们的研究结果表明,三种牙间清洁方法都能有效改善牙菌斑控制并减少牙龈炎症。不过,使用水冲牙器似乎能更有效地减少炎症,这凸显了它相对于其他两种方法的潜在优势。还需要进一步的研究来评估这些方法的长期疗效及其对种植体存活率的影响。
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
Efficacy of Three Interdental Cleaning Methods for Peri-Implant Health Maintenance of Single Implant-Supported Crowns: A Randomised Clinical Trial.

Purpose: To compare the effectiveness of an interproximal brush, a water flosser, and dental floss in removing plaque and reducing inflammation around implant-supported crowns.

Materials and methods: A randomised controlled trial was conducted involving 45 participants with implant-supported single crowns. The participants were randomly assigned to three groups: interproximal brush, water flosser, and dental floss. Plaque index scores, gingival index scores, and interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels were assessed at baseline and after a two-week period. Statistical analysis was performed to compare the outcomes among the groups.

Results: Following the second visit, improvements in plaque control were observed across all three interdental cleaning methods. The water flosser demonstrated a slight reduction in IL-6 levels (60.17 ± 3.07 vs 58.79 ± 4.04) compared to the initial visit, although this decrease was not statistically significant. Conversely, both the interdental brush and dental floss exhibited a slight increase in IL-6 levels at the second visit (60.73 ± 2.93 and 55.7 ± 10.64, respectively) compared to the mean at the first visit (58.38 ± 3.24 and 54.6 ± 2.22, respectively). Among the groups, only the interproximal brush demonstrated a statistically significant difference in IL-6 levels (p=0.008), while no statistically significant differences were observed in the dental floss and water flosser groups.

Conclusion: Within the study's limitations, our findings suggest that all three methods of interdental cleaning effectively improve plaque control and reduce gingival inflammation. However, using a water flosser appears to reduce inflammation more effectively, highlighting its potential advantage over the other two methods. Further research is needed to evaluate the long-term efficacy and impact of these methods on implant survival.

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
Oral health & preventive dentistry
Oral health & preventive dentistry DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
51
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinicians, general practitioners, teachers, researchers, and public health administrators will find this journal an indispensable source of essential, timely information about scientific progress in the fields of oral health and the prevention of caries, periodontal diseases, oral mucosal diseases, and dental trauma. Central topics, including oral hygiene, oral epidemiology, oral health promotion, and public health issues, are covered in peer-reviewed articles such as clinical and basic science research reports; reviews; invited focus articles, commentaries, and guest editorials; and symposium, workshop, and conference proceedings.
期刊最新文献
Self-monitoring of Oral Health Using Smartphone Selfie Powered by Artificial Intelligence: Implications for Preventive Dentistry. Does Non-surgical Periodontal Therapy With Adjunct Antimicrobial Photodynamic Therapy Help Reduce Periodontal Inflammation and Haemoglobin A1c Levels in Patients With Type-2 Diabetes Mellitus? A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. Effect of Active Oxygen Fluid (Blue®m) as a Root Canal Irrigant Against Enterococcus Faecalis. Evaluation of Colour Changes in Nanocomposite-Based Bulk-Fill and Universal Composite Using Different Polishing Systems. The Mechanisms and Application Value of Postbiotics in Caries Prevention and Management.
×
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