Patients' opinion on the use of 2 generations of power-driven water flossers and their impact on gingival inflammation.

OBJECTIVES: To assess patients' opinion on the use of 2 generations of power-driven water flossers and their impact on gingival inflammation. MATERIAL & METHODS: In the present prospective cohort study 24 periodontitis patients under regular supportive periodontal therapy used daily 2 generations of a power-driven water flosser (Sonicare AirFloss [SAF] and Sonicare AirFloss Ultra [SAFU]) for 12 weeks each. Patients were instructed to position the nozzle interproximally from the buccal aspect at each interproximal space. Patients' opinion was assessed by a questionnaire and interproximal bleeding on probing (BoP) was recorded. RESULTS: Overall satisfaction with SAF/SAFU was rated high, by about 80% of the patients. About 66% of the patients preferred SAF/SAFU compared to their previous interdental cleaning device and indicated that they would continue using SAF/SAFU after the study; none of the patients reported any discomfort or pain. Compared to only tooth brushing, daily use of SAF/SAFU caused a significant reduction of interproximal BoP values, which were well maintained over 6 months; that is, BoP at interproximal buccal and oral sites (pooled), as well as at interproximal buccal and oral sites separately, was proportionately reduced by 29.1%, 41.2%, and 24.8%, respectively (pooled: p = 0.027; buccal sites: p = 0.030; oral sites: p = 0.030). CONCLUSION: Patients were very fond of the power-driven water flossers tested herein, and daily use of the devices for 6 months (i.e., each device was used for 3 months) resulted in a significant reduction of gingival inflammation interproximally.

Bacterial colonization of a power-driven water flosser during regular use. A proof-of-principle study.

OBJECTIVES: The present proof-of-principle study assessed whether daily use of a power-driven water flosser (Sonicare AirFloss; SAF) leads to bacterial colonization in the nozzle and/or the device, resulting in contaminated water-jet. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In five participants, saliva samples at baseline and water-jet samples of devices used daily with bottled water for 3 weeks (test) were collected. Additionally, water-jet samples from devices used daily with bottled water extra-orally for 3 weeks (positive control) and from brand new devices (negative control), as well as samples from newly opened and 1- and 3-week opened water bottles were collected. Colony forming units (CFU) were recorded after 48 h culturing and 20 oral pathogens were assessed by polymerase chain reaction-based analysis. RESULTS: Distinct inter-individual differences regarding the number of detected bacteria were observed; water-jet samples of test devices included both aerobic and anaerobic bacterial species, with some similarities to the saliva sample of the user. Water-jet samples from positive control devices showed limited number of aerobic and anaerobic bacterial species, while the samples from negative control devices did not show any bacterial species. Very few aerobic bacteria were detected only in the 3-week-old bottled water samples, while samples of newly and 1-week opened water bottles did not show any bacterial growth. CONCLUSIONS: The present proof-of-principle study showed that daily use of a power-driven water flosser for 3 weeks resulted in bacterial colonization in the nozzle and/or device with both aerobic and anaerobic, not only oral, species, that are transmitted via the water-jet.