PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Orthodontic treatment presents challenges with plaque accumulation around brackets, archwires, and elastics, leading to retained plaque and gingival inflammation. Conventional toothbrushing may not be enough, requiring additional oral hygiene aids like interproximal brushes, dental flosses, and water flossers. Limited research exists on comparing water flossing and interdental flossing in orthodontic patients. Therefore, this study aims to assess their effectiveness in maintaining oral hygiene during active orthodontic treatment.
METHODS: A single-blind, randomized, parallel clinical study recruited orthodontic patients with full-mouth brackets and archwires. Thirty participants were randomly assigned to either water jet flossing or interdental flossing groups. All participants were instructed to brush twice daily with a provided toothbrush and toothpaste and use the assigned intervention once daily at night. Clinical measures, including the Gingival Bleeding Index (BI), Plaque Index (PI), and Gingival Index (GI), were recorded at baseline and day 14. Descriptive statistics and statistical tests were performed using SPSS software.
RESULTS: The water jet flossing group demonstrated a slightly higher, albeit non-significant, benefit in plaque removal (median difference of 6.79%%, P = 0.279) and bleeding reduction (median difference of 5.21%%, P = 0.172) compared to the interdental flossing group after two weeks. Both groups showed significant reductions in gingival bleeding index and plaque index from baseline to the 2-week follow-up. The interdental flossing group had median mean percentage differences of 16.13%% (plaque index) and 23.57% (gingival bleeding index), while the water jet flossing group had median percentage differences of 21.87% (plaque index) and 32.29% (gingival bleeding index). No significant changes in gingival index grades were observed in either group.
CONCLUSIONS: Both water jet flossing and interdental flossing were effective in reducing plaque accumulation and gingival bleeding among orthodontic patients. While no significant differences were found between the two methods, water jet flossing showed a potential advantage. Further research is needed to validate its effectiveness, assess long-term impact, and understand its benefits for orthodontic patients.
METHODS: A single-blind, randomized, parallel clinical study recruited orthodontic patients with full-mouth brackets and archwires. Thirty participants were randomly assigned to either water jet flossing or interdental flossing groups. All participants were instructed to brush twice daily with a provided toothbrush and toothpaste and use the assigned intervention once daily at night. Clinical measures, including the Gingival Bleeding Index (BI), Plaque Index (PI), and Gingival Index (GI), were recorded at baseline and day 14. Descriptive statistics and statistical tests were performed using SPSS software.
RESULTS: The water jet flossing group demonstrated a slightly higher, albeit non-significant, benefit in plaque removal (median difference of 6.79%%, P = 0.279) and bleeding reduction (median difference of 5.21%%, P = 0.172) compared to the interdental flossing group after two weeks. Both groups showed significant reductions in gingival bleeding index and plaque index from baseline to the 2-week follow-up. The interdental flossing group had median mean percentage differences of 16.13%% (plaque index) and 23.57% (gingival bleeding index), while the water jet flossing group had median percentage differences of 21.87% (plaque index) and 32.29% (gingival bleeding index). No significant changes in gingival index grades were observed in either group.
CONCLUSIONS: Both water jet flossing and interdental flossing were effective in reducing plaque accumulation and gingival bleeding among orthodontic patients. While no significant differences were found between the two methods, water jet flossing showed a potential advantage. Further research is needed to validate its effectiveness, assess long-term impact, and understand its benefits for orthodontic patients.
摘要：
背景：正畸治疗带来了牙槽周围牙菌斑堆积的挑战，弓丝,和弹性，导致保留的斑块和牙龈炎症。传统的刷牙可能还不够，需要额外的口腔卫生辅助设备，比如邻间刷，牙线,和水牙线。比较正畸患者的水牙线和牙间牙线的研究有限。因此,这项研究旨在评估它们在积极正畸治疗期间保持口腔卫生的有效性。
方法：单盲，随机化，平行临床研究招募了全口托槽和弓丝正畸患者。30名参与者被随机分配到喷水牙线或牙间牙线组。指示所有参与者每天用提供的牙刷和牙膏刷牙两次，并在晚上每天一次使用指定的干预措施。临床措施,包括牙龈出血指数（BI），斑块指数(PI),和牙龈指数（GI），在基线和第14天记录。使用SPSS软件进行描述性统计和统计检验。
结果：水射流牙线组显示出略高，尽管不重要，去除斑块的益处(中位数差异为6.79%，P=0.279）和出血减少（中位数差异为5.21％％，P=0.172）与两周后牙间牙线组相比。从基线到2周随访，两组牙龈出血指数和菌斑指数均显着降低。牙间牙线组的中位数平均百分比差异为16.13％（菌斑指数）和23.57％（牙龈出血指数），而喷水牙线组的中位百分比差异为21.87％（菌斑指数）和32.29％（牙龈出血指数）。两组均未观察到牙龈指数等级的显着变化。
结论：在正畸患者中，喷水牙线和齿间牙线均可有效减少牙菌斑积聚和牙龈出血。虽然两种方法之间没有发现显着差异，水射流牙线显示出潜在的优势。需要进一步的研究来验证其有效性，评估长期影响，并了解其对正畸患者的益处。
方法：单盲，随机化，平行临床研究招募了全口托槽和弓丝正畸患者。30名参与者被随机分配到喷水牙线或牙间牙线组。指示所有参与者每天用提供的牙刷和牙膏刷牙两次，并在晚上每天一次使用指定的干预措施。临床措施,包括牙龈出血指数（BI），斑块指数(PI),和牙龈指数（GI），在基线和第14天记录。使用SPSS软件进行描述性统计和统计检验。
结果：水射流牙线组显示出略高，尽管不重要，去除斑块的益处(中位数差异为6.79%，P=0.279）和出血减少（中位数差异为5.21％％，P=0.172）与两周后牙间牙线组相比。从基线到2周随访，两组牙龈出血指数和菌斑指数均显着降低。牙间牙线组的中位数平均百分比差异为16.13％（菌斑指数）和23.57％（牙龈出血指数），而喷水牙线组的中位百分比差异为21.87％（菌斑指数）和32.29％（牙龈出血指数）。两组均未观察到牙龈指数等级的显着变化。
结论：在正畸患者中，喷水牙线和齿间牙线均可有效减少牙菌斑积聚和牙龈出血。虽然两种方法之间没有发现显着差异，水射流牙线显示出潜在的优势。需要进一步的研究来验证其有效性，评估长期影响，并了解其对正畸患者的益处。
