GİZEM İNCE KUKA, OGÜL LEMAN TUNAR, HARE GÜRSOY, Bahar KURU

Üç farklı arayüz temizleme aracının temizleme etkinliğinin değerlendirilmesi: in vitro çalışma

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı, ara yüz temizliğinde kullanılan üç farklı temizlik aracının temizleme etkinliklerinin karşılaştırılmasıdır. Gereç ve Yöntem: Yetmiş iki adet ara yüz çürüğü veya restorasyonu olmayan çekilmiş insan dişi farklı ara yüz boşlukları yaratmak amacıyla kesiciler, küçük azılar ve büyük azılar olarak üç gruba ayrıldı. Dişler, orijinale yakın dar ve geniş kontak oluşturularak rezin gingiva modeline gömülüp, dişlerin aproksimal yüzeylerini gözlemlemek için interdental alandan ayrılan ve modelaj mumu ile yeniden birleşebilen bir rezin model oluşturuldu. Mikrobiyal dental plağı taklit etmek amacıyla dişlerin ara yüzleri kontak spreyi ile (0-Spray OkklusionssSpray, Scheftner, Almanya) boyanıp dijital fotoğraf makinesi ile fotoğraflandı. Boyutları birbirine denk olan ara yüz fırçaları (TePe® 0.45, 0.6) ile plastik ara yüz temizleyicisi (TePe EasyPick™, XS/S, M/L) ve kürdanlar (TePe® Dental Stick Slim/Medium) seçildi. Uygulanan kuvvetleri standardize etmek amacıyla Evrensel Test Cihazı (Instron®) kullanıldı. Kaldırılan boya miktarını ölçmek amacıyla mum ile birleşebilen model ayrılıp, her dişin aproksimal yüzeyi aynı açı ve mesafeden fotoğraflandı. İlk ve son fotoğraflar AutoCAD™ programı ile karşılaştırılıp, temizlenen boya miktarı hesaplandı. Bulgular: Uygulama sonrası üç grupta da istatistiksel olarak anlamlı değişim saptandı (p

Evaluation of the cleaning eff icacy of three different interdental cleaning devices: an in vitro study

Aim: The aim of the present study was to compare the cleaning efficacy of three different interdental cleaning devices. Materials and Methods: Seventy two extracted human teeth without approximal caries and restorations were separated to three groups as incisors, premolars and molars, including twenty four per each. All teeth were embedded into acrylic resin and the models were designed to be separable from the interproximal parts. To imitate the interdental plaque, the interproximal areas of the teeth were dyed with contact spray (0-Spray OkklusionssSpray, Scheftner, Germany). Three groups of approximately same sized interdental cleaning devices, rubber interdental pick (Tepe Easypick™ XS/S, M/L), interdental brush (TePe® 0.45, 0.6) and wooden sticks (TePe® Dental Stick Slim/Medium) were selected. To standardize the force applied, Universal Test Machine (Instron®) was used. After the application of interdental devices, the teeth were separated from the interproximal surfaces to analyse the cleaned areas. The teeth were digitally photographed and by using AutoCAD™ software, the dye removal was calculated. Results: All groups showed statistically significant differences in terms of relative cleaning area after interdental cleaning device application (p

PDF

___

Blanck M, Mankodi S, Wesley P, Tasket R, Nelson B. Evaluation of the plaque removal efficacy of two commercially available dental floss devices. J Clin Dent 2007; 18: 1-6.
Christou V, Timmerman MF, Van der Velden U, Van der Weijden FA. Comparison of different approaches of interdental oral hygiene: interdental brushes versus dental floss. J Periodontol 1998; 69: 759-764.
Abouassi T, . Clinical efficacy and patients' acceptance of a rubber interdental bristle. A randomized controlled trial. Clin Oral Investig 2014; 18: 1873-1880.
Chongcharoen N, Lulic M, Lang NP. Effectiveness of different interdental brushes on cleaning the interproximal surfaces of teeth and implants: a randomized controlled, double-blind cross-over study. Clin Oral Implants Res 2012; 23: 635-640.
Sälzer S, Slot DE, Van der Weijden FA, Dörfer CE. Efficacy of inter-dental mechanical plaque control in managing gingivitis--a meta-review. J Clin Periodontol 2015; 42: 92- 105.
Wolff D, Joerss D, Rau P, Dörfer CE. In vitro cleaning efficacy and resistance to insertion test of interdental brushes. Clin Oral Investig 2006; 10: 297-304.
Jackson MA, Kellett M, Worthington HV, Clerehugh V. Comparison of interdental cleaning methods: a randomized controlled trial. J Periodontol 2006; 77: 1421-1429.
Loos B, Nylund K, Claffey N, Egelberg J. Clinical effects of root debridement in molar and non-molar teeth. A 2-year follow-up. J Clin Periodontol 1989; 16: 498-504.
Slot DE, Dörfer CE, Van der Weijden GA. The efficacy of interdental brushes on plaque and parameters of peri odontal inflammation: a systematic review. Int J Dent Hyg 2008; 6: 253-264.
Drisko CL. Periodontal self-care: evidence-based sup - port. Periodontol 2000 2013; 62: 243-255.
Carrouel F, Llodra JC, Viennot S, Santamaria J, Bravo M, Bourgeois D. Access to Interdental Brushing in Perio - dontal Healthy Young Adults: A Cross-Sectional Study. PLoS One 2016; 11: e0155467.
Kiger RD, Nylund K, Feller RP. A comparison of proxi - mal plaque removal using floss and interdental brushes. J Clin Periodontol 1991; 18: 681-684.
Charon J, Sandele P, Joachim F. [Iatrogenic interden - tal brushing. Apropos of a case]. J Parodontol 1990; 9: 51-55.
Tucker R. Do woodsticks work? Evid Based Dent 2009; 10: 43.
Bergenholtz A, Brithon J. Plaque removal by dental floss or toothpicks. An intra-individual comparative study. J Clin Periodontol 1980; 7: 516-524.
Barton J, Abelson D. The clinical efficacy of wooden interdental cleaners in gingivitis reduction. Clin Prev Dent 1987; 9: 17-20.