Loading [MathJax]/jax/output/HTML-CSS/fonts/TeX/fontdata.js

Journal List > J Korean Acad Oral Health > v.38(2) > 1057628

TOOLS
Park, Park, Bae, Jin, and Baek: Comparing the efficacy of a high pressure spray oral hygiene appliance and a sonic vibration toothbrush in reducing dental plaque
Original Article

J Korean Acad Oral Health 2014;38(2):71-76.

Published online: 12 June 2014

DOI: https://doi.org/10.11149/jkaoh.2014.38.2.71

Comparing the efficacy of a high pressure spray oral hygiene appliance and a sonic vibration toothbrush in reducing dental plaque

Kiduck Park1, Woo-Chul Park2, Kwang-Hak Bae2, Bo-Hyoung Jin2, Dai-Il Baek2

1Seoul Cho Dental Clinic, Seoul, Korea

2Department of Preventive and Social Dentistry, Seoul National University School of Dentistry, Seoul, Korea

Corresponding Author: Woo-Chul Park Department of Preventive and Social Dentistry, Seoul National University School of Dentistry, 158-15, Samsung-dong, Gangnam-gu, Seoul 135-880, Korea Tel: +82-2-6002-2828 Fax: +82-2-553-2872 E-mail: woochuriya@naver.com

Received 11 March 2014       Revised 24 June 2014       Accepted 24 June 2014

Copyright © 2014 Journal of Korean Academy of Oral Health

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/), which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Objectives

This study aims to compare home care dental devices for their dental plaque removal ability.

Methods

A single blinded randomized crossover clinical study design was used to measure plaque index (Turesky Modification Quigley-Hein Plaque Index).

Results

All 3 groups showed a statistically significant decrease in the plaque index after usage (P<0.001). In manual tooth-brushing group, the teeth on the right dental arch showed a greater decrease in the plaque index than on the left arch (P=0.041). All appliances showed greater plaque reduction in the upper right posterior teeth than in the lower right posterior teeth (P=0.009, 0.004, 0.007).

Conclusions

The results of this study support development of more effective oral hygiene appliances and emphasis on oral hygienic education.

Go to : Goto

Keywords: Dental, Dental plaque index, Health education, Home care dental devices

References

1. Singh G, Mehta DS, Chopra S, Khatri M. Comparison of sonic and ionic toothbrush in reduction in plaque and gingivitis. J Indian Soc Periodontol. 2011; 15:210–214.
crossref
2. Hugoson A. Effect of the Water Pik device on plaque accumulation and development of gingivitis. J Clin Periodontol. 1978; 5:95–104.
3. Goyal CR, Lyle DM, Qaqish JG, Schuller R. The addition of a water flosser to power tooth brushing: effect on bleeding, gingivitis, and plaque. J Clin Dent. 2012; 23:57–63.
4. Zimmer S, Nezhat V, Bizhang M, Seemann R, Barthel C. Clinical efficacy of a new sonic/ultrasonic tooth brush. J Clin Periodontol. 2002; 29:496–500.
5. Kim JB, Paik DI, Moon HS, Seo HS, Song YH. A study on the tooth abrasiveness and plaque removal effect of electric vibrative toothbrushing. J Korean Acad Oral Health. 1992; 16:74–83.
6. Kim HN, Kim MJ, Kim JE, Lee PH, Park SH, Park SH, et al. Effect of gingival health promotion and oral hygiene improvement for children using vibratory toothbrushes. J Korean Acad Oral Health. 2013; 37:59–64.
crossref
7. Turesky S, Gilmore ND, Glickman I. Reduced plaque formation by the chloromethyl analogue of vitamine C. J Periodontol. 1970; 41:41–43.
8. Sharma NC, Qaqish JG, He T, Walters PA, Grender JM, Biesbrock AR. Plaque and gingivitis reduction efficacy of an advanced pul-sonic toothbrush: a 4-week randomized and controlled clinical trial. Am J Dent. 2010; 23:305–310.
9. Zimmer S, Fosca M, Roulet JF. Clinical study of the effectiveness of two sonic toothbrushes. J Clin Dent. 2000; 11:24–27.
10. Tritten CB, Armitage GC. Comparison of a sonic and a manual toothbrush for efficacy in supragingival plaque removal and reduction of gingivitis. J Clin Periodontol. 1996; 23:641–648.
crossref
11. Swierkot K, Brusius M, Leismann D, Nonnenmacher C, Nüsing R, Lubbe D, et al. Manual versus sonic-powered toothbrushing for plaque reduction in patients with dental implants: an explanatory randomised controlled trial. Eur J Oral Implantol. 2013; 6:133–144.
12. Pelka AK, Nagler T, Hopp I, Petschelt A, Pelka MA. Professional brushing study comparing the effectiveness of sonic brush heads with manual toothbrushes: a single blinded, randomized clinical trial. Clin Oral Investig. 2011; 15:451–460.
crossref
13. Gorur A, Lyle DM, Schaudinn C, Costerton JW. Biofilm removal with a dental water jet. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2009; 30:Spec No. S1–S6.
Go to : Goto

Table 1.
Baseline subject demographics
Waterpik® Sonicare® Manual toothbrush
Age* 26.6 (4.51) 27.1 (4.28) 26.9 (4.45)
Gender†
Male 11 11 12
Female 2 2 1
Hander type†
Right 13 13 13
Left 0 0 0

*Data presented mean (Standard deviation).

† Data presented frequency.

Table 2.
Whole mouth mean of plaque index and plaque reduction
Before After Plaque reduction P-value
Waterpik® 3.32 (0.440) 2.57 (0.530) 0.75 (0.301) <0.001
Sonicare® 3.13 (0.885) 2.04 (0.770) 1.10 (0.464) <0.001
Manual toothbrush 3.16 (0.690) 2.05 (0.591) 1.11 (0.385) <0.001

Data presented mean (Standard deviation).

Table 3.
Mean of plaque index and plaque reduction on right and left dental arch
Right dental arch Left dental arch P-value
Before After Plaque reduction Before After Plaque reduction
Waterpik® 3.46 (0.67) 2.39 (0.75) 1.06 (0.56) 3.38 (0.74) 2.38 (0.83) 1.00 (0.42) 0.861
Sonicare® 3.38 (0.92) 1.89 (0.76) 1.49 (0.70) 3.25 (1.11) 1.99 (0.98) 1.27 (0.71) 0.505
Manual toothbrush 3.38 (0.82) 1.75 (0.65) 1.63 (0.60) 3.35 (0.71) 2.00 (0.63) 1.35 (0.58) 0.075

Data presented mean (Standard deviation).

Table 4.
Mean of plaque index and plaque reduction of posterior upper teeth
Posterior upper right dental arch Posterior upper left dental arch
Before After Plaque reduction Before After Plaque reduction
Waterpik® 3.14 (0.55) 2.22 (0.62) 0.92 (0.41) 3.09 (0.68) 2.31 (0.80) 0.78 (0.33)
Sonicare® 3.07 (0.80) 1.79 (0.59) 1.29 (0.56) 3.05 (0.99) 1.92 (0.84) 1.13 (0.64)
Manual toothbrush 3.05 (0.66) 1.77 (0.62) 1.28 (0.43) 3.09 (0.60) 1.93 (0.65) 1.15 (0.43)

Data presented mean (Standard deviation).

Table 5.
Mean of plaque index and plaque reduction of posterior lower teeth
Posterior lower right dental arch Posterior lower left dental arch
Before After Plaque reduction Before After Plaque reduction
waterpik® 3.24 (0.62) 2.48 (0.64) 0.76 (0.43) 3.42 (0.58) 2.69 (0.72) 0.73 (0.40)
Sonicare® 3.12 (1.01) 2.37 (0.95) 0.75 (0.51) 3.31 (0.82) 2.39 (0.88) 0.92 (0.51)
Manual toothbrush 3.28 (0.74) 2.26 (0.64) 1.03 (0.51) 3.30 (0.93) 2.35 (0.87) 0.95 (0.39)

Data presented mean (Standard deviation).

Table 6.
Mean of proximal plaque index and proximal plaque reduction
Before After Plaque reduction
waterpik® 3.74 (0.60) 2.94 (0.65) 0.79 (0.34)
Sonicare® 3.62 (0.96) 2.49 (0.89) 1.13 (0.46)
Manual toothbrush 3.54 (0.83) 2.42 (0.73) 1.12 (0.41)

Data presented mean (Standard deviation).

TOOLS
Similar articles