首页> 外文OA文献 >Interdental cleaning and gingival injury potential of interdental toothbrushes : A laboratory investigation
【2h】

Interdental cleaning and gingival injury potential of interdental toothbrushes : A laboratory investigation

机译:齿间牙刷的齿间清洁和牙龈损伤可能性:实验室研究

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

The effective cleaning of interdental spaces using toothbrushes is a challenge. The aim of the present in vitro study was to evaluate on the one hand the interdental cleaning efficiency and on the other hand the gingival injury potential of an electric single-headed sonic toothbrush (Water-pik) and two single-tufted manual toothbrushes (Curaprox 1009; Lactona Interdental Brush). Brushes were evaluated using a brushing device. Test dental casts (maxillary sextants) consisting of black teeth coated with white paint were brushed using standardized horizontal movements. Thereafter, black (i.e. cleaned) areas were measured planimetrically. The soft tissue injury potential was evaluated using front segments of porcine mandibles. In the same brushing device, test brushes were moved over the gingiva. Before and after each treatment, the porcine mucosa was stained with a plaque disclosing agent to visualize injured areas, which could then be measured planimetrically as well. These evaluations were each made after 15, 30, 60, and 120 seconds of brushing. The statistical analysis was performed using non-parametric Mann-Whitney tests, and the level of significance was set at 5%. The best cleaning performance of 46% across all interdental spaces assessed was found with the electric sonic toothbrush (Waterpik), while the performances of the manual brushes from Lactona and Curaprox were 14.8% and 5%, respectively. At each point of evaluation, the gingiva was injured most markedly by the powered sonic toothbrush (Waterpik), followed by the manual Curaprox brush. The smallest damage of the porcine gingiva was produced by the manual Lactona brush. When comparing the manual toothbrushes, the Lactona product revealed a better cleaning performance combined with a smaller injury potential than the Curaprox brush. Thus, the prophylactic goal to achieve high degrees of cleaning while producing minimal damage is important and should have priority when evaluating and selecting toothbrushes.
机译:使用牙刷有效清洁齿间间隙是一个挑战。本体外研究的目的是一方面评估电动单头声波牙刷(Water-pik)和两支单簇状手动牙刷(Curaprox)的齿间清洁效率,另一方面1009; Lactona齿间刷)。使用刷洗装置评估刷洗。使用标准的水平运动刷涂由涂有白色涂料的黑牙组成的测试牙齿模型(上颌骨)。此后,平面地测量黑色(即,清洁的)区域。使用猪下颌骨的前段评估了软组织损伤的可能性。在同一刷牙装置中,将测试刷在牙龈上移动。在每次治疗之前和之后,用斑块暴露剂对猪的粘膜进行染色以可视化受伤的区域,然后也可以通过平面法对其进行测量。这些评估分别在刷15、30、60和120秒后进行。使用非参数Mann-Whitney检验进行统计分析,显着性水平设置为5%。使用电动声波牙刷(Waterpik)在所有评估的齿间空间中发现最佳清洁性能为46%,而来自Lactona和Curaprox的手动牙刷的性能分别为14.8%和5%。在每个评估点,电动声波牙刷(Waterpik)以及手动的Curaprox牙刷对牙龈的伤害最为明显。猪牙龈的最小损伤是由手动Lactona刷子产生的。在比较手动牙刷时,与Curaprox牙刷相比,Lactona产品具有更好的清洁性能和更小的伤害潜力。因此,在达到最小程度的损害的同时达到高度清洁的预防目标很重要,在评估和选择牙刷时应优先考虑。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号