Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the most effective method for mechanical inter-dental plaque removal between inter-dental brushes (IDB) and dental floss (DF), in addition to toothbrushing in patients affected by peri-implant mucositis (PIM); to identify possible factors related to the patient or to the single implant-supported element that could influence plaque accumulation and inflammation of peri-implant tissues.
METHODS: Forty patients with PIM were recruited. They were randomly assigned to two different groups depending on inter-dental device used (IDB or DF). At baseline (T0), interproximal area (IA), interproximal emergence angle of the implant crown (A°) and manual dexterity (evaluated with Purdue Pegboard) have been recorded. At 14 days (T1), the inter-dental cleaning devices have been inverted between groups. After 14 days (T2), the Plaque Index (PI) and Gingival Index (GI) have been recorded. A questionnaire has been submitted to a patient for the analysis of preferences at T0, T1 and T2.
RESULTS: Both inter-dental cleaning devices were effective in reducing PI and GI in the inter-dental area after 14 days of use. GI reduction was influenced by manual dexterity of the dominant hand. No significant differences were found for PI and GI at the variation of IA and A°.
CONCLUSIONS: IDB was the most effective method for inter-dental plaque removal in all subjects regardless of their manual dexterity. DF seems to be more effective than IDB only in subjects with good dexterity.
METHODS: Forty patients with PIM were recruited. They were randomly assigned to two different groups depending on inter-dental device used (IDB or DF). At baseline (T0), interproximal area (IA), interproximal emergence angle of the implant crown (A°) and manual dexterity (evaluated with Purdue Pegboard) have been recorded. At 14 days (T1), the inter-dental cleaning devices have been inverted between groups. After 14 days (T2), the Plaque Index (PI) and Gingival Index (GI) have been recorded. A questionnaire has been submitted to a patient for the analysis of preferences at T0, T1 and T2.
RESULTS: Both inter-dental cleaning devices were effective in reducing PI and GI in the inter-dental area after 14 days of use. GI reduction was influenced by manual dexterity of the dominant hand. No significant differences were found for PI and GI at the variation of IA and A°.
CONCLUSIONS: IDB was the most effective method for inter-dental plaque removal in all subjects regardless of their manual dexterity. DF seems to be more effective than IDB only in subjects with good dexterity.
摘要：
目的：评估在牙间刷（IDB）和牙线（DF）之间进行机械牙间菌斑去除的最有效方法，除了在受种植体周围粘膜炎（PIM）影响的患者中刷牙外，还确定与患者或单个种植体支持元件相关的可能因素，这些因素可能会影响种植体周围组织的斑块积聚和炎症。
方法：招募40例PIM患者。根据所使用的牙间装置(IDB或DF),他们被随机分配到两个不同的组。在基线（T0），邻间区（IA），记录了植入物牙冠的邻间出射角（A°）和手动灵活性（使用PurduePegboard评估）。在14天（T1），牙间清洁装置在组间倒置。14天后（T2），记录了菌斑指数（PI）和牙龈指数（GI）。已将问卷提交给患者以分析T0、T1和T2的偏好。
结果：两种牙间清洁装置在使用14天后均可有效降低牙间区域的PI和GI。胃肠道减少受到优势手的手动灵活性的影响。在IA和A°的变化下，PI和GI没有发现显着差异。
结论：IDB是所有受试者中去除牙菌斑的最有效方法，无论他们的手灵活性如何。仅在具有良好灵活性的受试者中，DF似乎比IDB更有效。
方法：招募40例PIM患者。根据所使用的牙间装置(IDB或DF),他们被随机分配到两个不同的组。在基线（T0），邻间区（IA），记录了植入物牙冠的邻间出射角（A°）和手动灵活性（使用PurduePegboard评估）。在14天（T1），牙间清洁装置在组间倒置。14天后（T2），记录了菌斑指数（PI）和牙龈指数（GI）。已将问卷提交给患者以分析T0、T1和T2的偏好。
结果：两种牙间清洁装置在使用14天后均可有效降低牙间区域的PI和GI。胃肠道减少受到优势手的手动灵活性的影响。在IA和A°的变化下，PI和GI没有发现显着差异。
结论：IDB是所有受试者中去除牙菌斑的最有效方法，无论他们的手灵活性如何。仅在具有良好灵活性的受试者中，DF似乎比IDB更有效。
