New design of interdental rubber picks - does the archimedean screw design bring an improvement for experimental cleaning efficacy and force?

BACKGROUND: Up to date, interdental brushes (IDB) are the first choice for interdental cleaning because of their cleaning efficacy. Cylindrical ones must be selected individually according to the size/morphology of the interdental area (IDR), whereas conical ones cover a larger variability of IDR. However, there is a trend on the part of patients towards interdental rubber picks (IRP) which are in general conically shaped, and which seem to be linked with lower cleaning efficacy. A new IRP with an Archimedes´ screw design was developed to overcome this limitation. Therefore, the in vitro study aimed to measure the experimental cleaning efficacy (ECE) and force (ECF) during interdental use of IDBs versus the new IRP type. METHODS: Three IRPs with different tapers (PHB angled: 0.039, PHB straight S: 0.027, Vitis straight M: 0.045; all Flexipicks, Dentaid, Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain) were compared to one IDB (Interprox micro PHD 0.9, Dentaid, Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain). IDR were reproduced by a 3D-printer (Form2, Formlabs Sommerville, MA, USA) according to human teeth and matched to equivalent pairs (isosceles triangle, concave, convex) in three different diameters (1.0 mm,1.1 mm,1.3 mm). Covered with simulated biofilm, pre-/ post-brushing situations of IDR (standardized, computer-aided ten cycles) were photographed and quantified by digital image subtraction to calculate ECE [%]. ECF were registered with a load cell [N]. Statistically significant differences were detected using the Mann-Whitney-U-test and the Kruskal-Wallis-test with Bonferroni correction for multiple testing. RESULTS: Overall, the ECE (mean ± SD) was higher for IDB micro 0.9 (45.95 ± 11.34%, p < 0.001) compared to all IRPs (PHB angled: 25.37 ± 15.29%; PHB straight: 22.28 ± 16.75%; Vitis straight: 25.24 ± 12.21%; p ≤ 0.001), whereat best ECE was achieved in isosceles triangle IDR of 1.0-1.1 mm (IDB micro 0.9: 70.7 ± 7.7%; PHB angled S: 57.30 ± 4.43%; p < 0.001). The highest ECF occurred for Vitis straight M with 2.11 ± 0.46 N, while IDB micro 0.9 showed lowest ECF values (0.64 ± 0.14 N; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: IRP with an Archimedes´ screw design and a higher taper were associated with advanced ECE but also higher ECF, nevertheless, ECE didn't reach the cleaning efficacy of conventional IDBs.

The influence of artificial saliva on the cleaning force of interdental rubber picks: an in-vitro comparison.

BACKGROUND: The familiar aids for interdental cleaning such as dental floss or interdental brushes (IDB) are often associated with difficult handling or an increased potential for trauma. Interdental picks (IRP), which have no metal core and silicone flaps instead of nylon brushes, offer the alternative. However, in-vitro studies found a lower cleaning effectiveness combined with higher forces for cleaning compared with conventional IDBs. The aim of this in-vitro study was to measure the experimental cleaning forces (ECF) using IRP with versus without an artificial saliva (AS; GUM Hydral, Sunstar Suisse SA, Etoy, Switzerland). METHODS: The test set-up was developed to investigate the cleaning of 3D-printed interdental area (IDR) mimicking human teeth (Form 2, Formlabs Sommerville, MA, USA) under standardized conditions. Three different morphologies (isosceles triangle, convex, concave) and three different sizes (1.0 mm,1.1 mm,1.3 mm) were used. Two different IRPs (GUM Soft-picks Advanced: SPA versus GUM Soft-picks Advanced Plus: SPA+, Sunstar Suisse SA, Etoy, Switzerland) in three sizes (small, regular, large), were used with versus without AS. ECF during ten cleaning cycles were recorded by a load cell [N]. RESULTS: Using AS leaded to significant lower values for ECF than without (1.04 ± 0.66 N versus 1.97 ± 1.01 N, p < 0.001). In general, a lower ECF was recorded for convex IDR compared to isosceles triangle and concave morphologies (p < 0.001) as well as for gap sizes of 1.3 mm compared to the smaller sizes (p < 0.001). For SPA+ we found significantly higher force values than for SPA (1.67 ± 0.93 N versus 1.31 ± 0.97 N, p < 0.001) independent of the use of AS. CONCLUSION: Within the study´s in-vitro limitations, we found AS reduced ECF of IRPs by half and allowed using larger diameters interdentally, which could be associated with (1) a higher cleaning effectiveness and (2) a higher acceptance e.g. of patients with dry mouth. This has to be confirmed by further clinical investigations.

In vitro comparison of cleaning efficacy and force of cylindric interdental brush versus an interdental rubber pick.

BACKGROUND: Interdental brushes (IDB) are according to the actual evidence the first choice for cleaning interdental areas (IDR). Their size should be chosen individually according to the IDR morphology. However, interdental rubber picks (IRP) are appreciated better by the patients and are hence becoming more and more popular but the evidence regarding their efficacy is still limited. The aim of this in vitro study was to measure the experimental cleaning efficacy (ECE) and force (ECF) during the use of interdental brushes versus newer wireless types with rubber filaments (IRP), both fitted and non-fitted for different IDR. METHODS: The medium size of a conical IRP (regular, ISO 2) with elastomeric fingers versus four sizes (ISO 1, 2, 3, 4) of cylindric IDB with nylon filaments (all Sunstar Suisse SA, Etoy, Switzerland) were tested. Interdental tooth surfaces were reproduced by a 3D-printer (Form 2, Formlabs Sommerville, MA, USA) according to human teeth and matched to morphologically equivalent pairs (isosceles triangle, concave, convex) fitting to three different gap sizes (1.0 mm, 1.1 mm, 1.3 mm). The pre-/post brushing situations at IDR (standardized, computer aided ten cycles) were photographically recorded and quantified by digital image subtraction to calculate ECE [%]. ECF were registered with a load cell [N]. RESULTS: Overall, a higher ECE was recorded for IDB compared to IRP (58.3 ± 14.9% versus 18.4 ± 10.1%; p < 0.001). ECE significantly depended on the fitting of the IDB. ECE was significant higher in isosceles triangle compared to concave and convex IDR for both IDB and IRP (p ≤ 0.001). ECF was lower for IDB (0.6 ± 0.4N) compared to IRP (0.8 ± 0.5N; p ≤ 0.001). ECE in relation to ECF increases with smaller IDB. For IRP highest values of ECF were found in the smallest IDR. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of an in vitro study, size fitted IDB cleaned more effectively at lower forces compared to conical IRP.

New experimental setup for the measurement of cleaning efficacy and force of interdental aids in 3D-reproduced interdental areas.

BACKGROUND: Interdental rubber picks (IRP) have become a frequent and convenient alternative for interdental cleaning. However, only little evidence exists supporting the effectiveness of newer designs available on the market. Therefore, a new in vitro model was evaluated to measure the experimental cleaning efficacy (ECE), as well as the force needed for insertion and during the use of IRP, with high reproducibility. METHODS: Five different sizes of commercially marketed IRP with elastomeric fingers (IRP-F) (GUM SOFT-PICKS® Advanced, Sunstar Deutschland GmbH, Schönau, Germany) or slats (IRP-S) (TePe EasyPick™, TePe D-A-CH GmbH, Hamburg, Germany) were tested. Interdental tooth surfaces were reproduced by a 3D-printer (Form 2, Formlabs Sommerville, MA, USA) according to human teeth and matched to morphologically equivalent pairs (isosceles triangle, concave, convex) fitting to different gap sizes (1.0 mm, 1.1 mm, 1.3 mm). The pre-/post brushing situations at interdental areas (standardized cleaning, computer aided ten cycles) were photographically recorded and quantified by digital image subtraction to calculate ECE [%]. Forces were registered with a load cell [N]. RESULTS: IRP-F have to be inserted with significant higher forces of 3.2 ± 1.8 N compared to IRP-S (2.0 ± 1.6 N; p < 0.001) independent of the size and type of artificial interdental area. During cleaning process IRP-S showed significantly lower values for pushing/pulling (1.0 ± 0.8 N/0.5 ± 0.4 N) compared to IRP-F (1.6 ± 0.8 N/0.7 ± 0.3 N; p < 0.001) concomitant to significantly lower ECE (19.1 ± 9.8 vs. 21.7 ± 10.0%, p = 0.002). Highest ECE was measured with largest size of IRP-F/IRP-S independent the morphology of interdental area. CONCLUSIONS: New interdental cleaning aids can be tested by the new experimental setup supported by 3D printing technology. Within the limitations of an in vitro study, IRP-F cleaned more effectively at higher forces compared to IRP-S.