Evaluation of a Curved Design Rubber Bristle Interdental Cleaner on Patients with Gingivitis.

Purpose: The purpose of this clinical study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a curved rubber bristle interdental cleaner, as compared to dental floss, in the reduction of gingivitis and plaque.Methods: Gingival Index (GI), Bleeding on Probing (BOP), Periodontal Probing Depth (PPD) and Modified QH Plaque Index (MQH-PI) parameters were evaluated in an examiner-masked, parallel group, controlled clinical study. A total of 50 participants with gingivitis (no site with PPD >4 mm, BOP ≥10% but ≤50%) met the eligibility criteria. Participants were randomly assigned to either the curved rubber bristle interdental cleaner (cRBIC) group or the ADA-accepted dental floss (Floss) group. Participants used the devices for four weeks. Parameters were obtained at 2 and 4 weeks. Participants scored their level of product familiarity, satisfaction and motivation for interdental cleaning.Results: There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in changes from baseline to 2 or 4 weeks in GI, BOP%, and MQH-PI. However, cRBIC group showed greater reduction of PPD at 4 weeks from baseline, compared with Floss group (p<0.05). The cRBIC group showed overall better compliance level than Floss group. The mean score of "ease of use" of the cRBIC group was significantly greater than that of Floss group. However, Floss group showed higher levels of "satisfaction" than cRBIC group. Motivation for interdental cleaning was higher in cRBIC.Conclusion: The cRBIC was similar to Floss in clinical effectiveness; however, PPD reduction at 4 weeks was greater with the cRBIC. Ease of use of cRBIC may have affected the participants' motivation for interdental cleaning, resulting in better compliance.

Clinical and subclinical effects of power brushing following experimental induction of biofilm overgrowth in subjects representing a spectrum of periodontal disease.

AIM: Investigate short-term effects of power brushing following experimental induction of biofilm overgrowth in periodontal disease states. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Overall, 175 subjects representing each of five biofilm-gingival interface (BGI) periodontal groups were enrolled in a single-blind, randomized study. After stent-induced biofilm overgrowth for 21 days subjects received either a manual or a power toothbrush to use during a 4 weeks resolution phase. At baseline and during induction and resolution, standard clinical parameters were measured. Subclinical parameters included multikine analysis of 13 salivary biomarkers and 16s Human Oral Microbe Identification Microarray (HOMIM) probe analysis of subgingival plaque samples. RESULTS: All groups exhibited significantly greater reductions in bleeding on probing (BOP) (p = 0.002), gingival index (GI) (p = 0.0007), pocket depth (PD) (p = 0.04) and plaque index (p = 0.001) with power brushing compared to manual. When BGI groups were combined to form a shallow PD (PD ≤ 3 mm) and a deep PD group (PD > 4 mm) power brushing reduced BOP and GI in subjects with both pocket depths. Power brushing significantly reduced IL-1ß levels at resolution while changes in bacterial levels showed non-significant trends between both brushing modalities. CONCLUSIONS: Short-term changes in select clinical parameters and subclinical salivary biomarkers may be useful in assessing efficacy of power brushing interventions in a spectrum of periodontal disease states.