Search

Objectives To compare the cleansing efficacy of a representative “ten seconds” auto-cleaning device with that of uninstructed manual toothbrushing in a pilot study. Materials and methods Twenty periodontally healthy probands refrained from oral hygiene for 3 days. Baseline full-mouth plaque scores (Rustogi Modified Navy Plaque Index, RMNPI) were assessed. After randomization, probands cleaned their teeth either with the auto-cleaning test device according to the manufacturer’s protocol or with a manual toothbrush. Plaque reduction was assessed by two aligned blinded investigators. After a 2-week recovery, the clinical investigation was repeated in a crossover design. The brushing pattern of the auto-cleaning device was analyzed in probands’ casts. Results Full-mouth plaque reduction was 11.37 ± 3.70% for the auto-cleaning device and 31.39 ± 5.27% for manual toothbrushing (p Conclusions Uninstructed manual toothbrushing is superior to auto-cleaning. The alignment and density of the auto-cleaning device’s bristle rows need to be improved, and assorted sizes would be necessary to cover different jaw shapes. Clinical relevance The auto-cleaning device has been developed to accommodate individuals with poor dexterity or compliance. To date, it is unable to provide sufficient plaque reduction due to an inappropriate bristle alignment and poor fit with diverse dental arches.

The aim of this study was to investigate the operating conditions of dentists in Central Europe during the first coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) lockdown. A survey including 24 questions was emailed to dentists in Austria, Germany, Switzerland and South Tyrol (Italy). Questions regarding dentists’ field of work, working hours, treatments performed, personal protective equipment and protocols, and economic consequences were asked. 1731 participants were included. 30.4% of participants worked mainly in Austria, 60.8% in Germany, 6% in Switzerland and 2.1% in South Tyrol. A country-specific analysis for the situation of South Tyrol was not possible due to the low participation; 53.7% of German, 45.5% of Austrian, and 11.7% of Swiss respondents reduced their working hours; 42.8% of Austrian, 41.5% of Swiss, and 17.3% of German participants closed their offices temporarily; 52.2% of respondents provided emergency service including pain management, restorations/temporaries, and denture repairs. A lack of access to FFP2/FFP3 (filtering facepiece) respirators was indicated by 59.4% Austrian, 38.0% German, and 11.7% Swiss dentists (p < 0.001). FFP2/FFP3 respirators were, when available, most frequently used in Austria (86.9%), followed by Switzerland (61.2%) and Germany (56.7%) (pi> < 0.001). Financial consequences could not be conclusively quantified by 58.6% of the participants. Most respondents in all partaking countries made use of governmental support. A lack of blueprints/guidelines resulted in heterogeneous working conditions. In consideration of a potentially high risk of infection in the dental setting, non-emergency dental treatments were largely suspended in all participating countries.