Search

Objectives: To compare the cleaning efficacy of a powered toothbrush with 3-dimensional brush head action (Braun Oral-B 3D Plaque Remover D15) and a high-speed "microtation" brush with an additional "microbrush-clip" (Rowenta Dentasonic MH921S)., Material and Methods: 82 healthy subjects took part in the study. After a familiarization period of 8 days, the subjects abstained from all oral hygiene procedures for 48 h. After plaque was scored, the subjects brushed their teeth under supervision with the two brushes according to a split-mouth design. Immediately after brushing, subjects completed a questionnaire and plaque was scored again., Results: The overall plaque scores were found to be significantly reduced from 3.05+/-0.60 to 1.96+/-0.63 by the D15 and from 3.02+/-0.58 to 2.24+/-0.64 by the Dentasonic (p<0.05). The proximal surface plaque scores were reduced from 3.20+/-0.63 to 2.17+/-0.69 by the D15 and from 3.17+/-0.60 to 2.44+/-0.69 by the Dentasonic. The relative plaque reduction was overall 36.6+/-12.2% for the D15 compared to 26.1+/-13.5% for the Dentasonic and at proximal surfaces, 33.1+/-12.3% and 23.2+/-13.0%, respectively. 75% of the subjects stated that they would prefer to keep the D15., Conclusions: Both brushes were able to remove a significant amount of plaque, but the D15 was significantly more effective compared to the Dentasonic. The additional "microbrush-clip" for the proximal embrasures failed to improve plaque removal from these tooth surfaces, compared to the D15 alone.

Background: (I) Introducing an intraoral camera system with a special positioner to allow computer-based analysis of reproducible images on lingual tooth surfaces and (II) comparing plaque removal by three manual toothbrushes with different brushhead designs (convex, multilevel and flat trimmed) on lingual mandibular tooth surfaces., Method: In a clinical single-blind, crossover, 24-h plaque-regrowth study on 25 subjects, a computer-based index (PPI) was used to evaluate pre- and postbrushing plaque on lingual surfaces of mandibular premolars and molars. Subjects brushed their teeth under standardized conditions at three visits, each time with a different, randomly assigned toothbrush., Results: The intraoral camera system allowed a reproducible and relatively convenient access to the lingual surfaces of the mandibular teeth and provided an increase in objectivity. Overall, each brush achieved statistically significant plaque removal, however, none reached clinical relevance. The multilevel brush was superior at specific sites, but failed to show statistically significant superiority in terms of overall plaque reduction. Without regard of the toothbrush used, the right handed subjects were less efficient in removing plaque from the right side compared to the left., Conclusions: The method is able to detect even small differences in plaque reduction. None of the different brushhead designs was able to compensate an insufficient brushing techniques.

Aim: The comparison of the effects of guided-tissue regeneration (GTR) using 2 different biodegradable barriers (polylactide acetyltributyl citrate; polydioxanon) in 3- and 2-wall intrabony defects., Method: The polydioxanon barrier is an experimental membrane for GTR therapy that consists of an continuous occlusive barrier that has a layer of slings on the side that is meant to face the mucoperiosteal flap. 15 patients provided 15 pairs of similar contralateral periodontal defects: 12 predominantly 2-wall and 18 predominantly 3-wall intrabony defects. Each defect was randomly assigned to treatment with either polylactide acetyltributyl citrate (control [c]) or polydioxanon (test [t]) devices. At baseline and 6 months after surgery, clinical measurements (P1I, GI, PPD, PAL-V) were performed., Results: Barrier exposure was commonly observed in both groups (control/test): 5/4 after 7 days, 9/11 after 14 days and 11/12 after 28 days postsurgically. 4 weeks after surgery, 77% of all barriers were exposed to some extent. However, both treatments revealed a significant GI reduction (p<0.05), PPD reduction [-4.63+/-1.85 mm (t), -4.17+/-1.89 mm (c); p<0.001] and PAL-V gain [3.97+/-1.17 mm (t), 3.40 mm+/-1.40 (c); p<0.001] 6 months after surgery. Regarding GI and PPD reduction as well as PAL-V gain, there were neither statistically significant nor clinically relevant differences between test and control: similar clinical results were found 6 months after surgical treatment using both biodegradable barriers., Conclusions: Based on the results of the present study, the use of both biodegradable barriers in GTR therapy may be recommended.