In vitro comparison of cleaning efficacy and force of cylindric interdental brush versus an interdental rubber pick

Abstract Background Interdental brushes (IDB) are according to the actual evidence the first choice for cleaning interdental areas (IDR). Their size should be chosen individually according to the IDR morphology. However, interdental rubber picks (IRP) are appreciated better by the patients and are h...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Christian Graetz, Kristina Schoepke, Johanna Rabe, Susanne Schorr, Antje Geiken, David Christofzik, Thomas Rinder, Christof E. Dörfer, Sonja Sälzer
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: BMC 2021-04-01
Series:BMC Oral Health
Subjects:
Online Access:https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-021-01558-4
id doaj-d6d521cec9a1410cade73bca67cb0432
record_format Article
spelling doaj-d6d521cec9a1410cade73bca67cb04322021-04-18T11:43:47ZengBMCBMC Oral Health1472-68312021-04-012111910.1186/s12903-021-01558-4In vitro comparison of cleaning efficacy and force of cylindric interdental brush versus an interdental rubber pickChristian Graetz0Kristina Schoepke1Johanna Rabe2Susanne Schorr3Antje Geiken4David Christofzik5Thomas Rinder6Christof E. Dörfer7Sonja Sälzer8Clinic of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University of KielClinic of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University of KielClinic of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University of KielClinic of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University of KielClinic of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University of KielClinic of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University of KielInstitute of Mechatronics, Computer Science and Electrical Engineering, Kiel University of Applied SciencesClinic of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University of KielClinic of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University of KielAbstract Background Interdental brushes (IDB) are according to the actual evidence the first choice for cleaning interdental areas (IDR). Their size should be chosen individually according to the IDR morphology. However, interdental rubber picks (IRP) are appreciated better by the patients and are hence becoming more and more popular but the evidence regarding their efficacy is still limited. The aim of this in vitro study was to measure the experimental cleaning efficacy (ECE) and force (ECF) during the use of interdental brushes versus newer wireless types with rubber filaments (IRP), both fitted and non-fitted for different IDR. Methods The medium size of a conical IRP (regular, ISO 2) with elastomeric fingers versus four sizes (ISO 1, 2, 3, 4) of cylindric IDB with nylon filaments (all Sunstar Suisse SA, Etoy, Switzerland) were tested. Interdental tooth surfaces were reproduced by a 3D-printer (Form 2, Formlabs Sommerville, MA, USA) according to human teeth and matched to morphologically equivalent pairs (isosceles triangle, concave, convex) fitting to three different gap sizes (1.0 mm, 1.1 mm, 1.3 mm). The pre-/post brushing situations at IDR (standardized, computer aided ten cycles) were photographically recorded and quantified by digital image subtraction to calculate ECE [%]. ECF were registered with a load cell [N]. Results Overall, a higher ECE was recorded for IDB compared to IRP (58.3 ± 14.9% versus 18.4 ± 10.1%; p < 0.001). ECE significantly depended on the fitting of the IDB. ECE was significant higher in isosceles triangle compared to concave and convex IDR for both IDB and IRP (p ≤ 0.001). ECF was lower for IDB (0.6 ± 0.4N) compared to IRP (0.8 ± 0.5N; p ≤ 0.001). ECE in relation to ECF increases with smaller IDB. For IRP highest values of ECF were found in the smallest IDR. Conclusions Within the limitations of an in vitro study, size fitted IDB cleaned more effectively at lower forces compared to conical IRP.https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-021-01558-4Oral hygieneInterdental brushesMechanical plaque controlInterdental cleaning efficacy
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Christian Graetz
Kristina Schoepke
Johanna Rabe
Susanne Schorr
Antje Geiken
David Christofzik
Thomas Rinder
Christof E. Dörfer
Sonja Sälzer
spellingShingle Christian Graetz
Kristina Schoepke
Johanna Rabe
Susanne Schorr
Antje Geiken
David Christofzik
Thomas Rinder
Christof E. Dörfer
Sonja Sälzer
In vitro comparison of cleaning efficacy and force of cylindric interdental brush versus an interdental rubber pick
BMC Oral Health
Oral hygiene
Interdental brushes
Mechanical plaque control
Interdental cleaning efficacy
author_facet Christian Graetz
Kristina Schoepke
Johanna Rabe
Susanne Schorr
Antje Geiken
David Christofzik
Thomas Rinder
Christof E. Dörfer
Sonja Sälzer
author_sort Christian Graetz
title In vitro comparison of cleaning efficacy and force of cylindric interdental brush versus an interdental rubber pick
title_short In vitro comparison of cleaning efficacy and force of cylindric interdental brush versus an interdental rubber pick
title_full In vitro comparison of cleaning efficacy and force of cylindric interdental brush versus an interdental rubber pick
title_fullStr In vitro comparison of cleaning efficacy and force of cylindric interdental brush versus an interdental rubber pick
title_full_unstemmed In vitro comparison of cleaning efficacy and force of cylindric interdental brush versus an interdental rubber pick
title_sort in vitro comparison of cleaning efficacy and force of cylindric interdental brush versus an interdental rubber pick
publisher BMC
series BMC Oral Health
issn 1472-6831
publishDate 2021-04-01
description Abstract Background Interdental brushes (IDB) are according to the actual evidence the first choice for cleaning interdental areas (IDR). Their size should be chosen individually according to the IDR morphology. However, interdental rubber picks (IRP) are appreciated better by the patients and are hence becoming more and more popular but the evidence regarding their efficacy is still limited. The aim of this in vitro study was to measure the experimental cleaning efficacy (ECE) and force (ECF) during the use of interdental brushes versus newer wireless types with rubber filaments (IRP), both fitted and non-fitted for different IDR. Methods The medium size of a conical IRP (regular, ISO 2) with elastomeric fingers versus four sizes (ISO 1, 2, 3, 4) of cylindric IDB with nylon filaments (all Sunstar Suisse SA, Etoy, Switzerland) were tested. Interdental tooth surfaces were reproduced by a 3D-printer (Form 2, Formlabs Sommerville, MA, USA) according to human teeth and matched to morphologically equivalent pairs (isosceles triangle, concave, convex) fitting to three different gap sizes (1.0 mm, 1.1 mm, 1.3 mm). The pre-/post brushing situations at IDR (standardized, computer aided ten cycles) were photographically recorded and quantified by digital image subtraction to calculate ECE [%]. ECF were registered with a load cell [N]. Results Overall, a higher ECE was recorded for IDB compared to IRP (58.3 ± 14.9% versus 18.4 ± 10.1%; p < 0.001). ECE significantly depended on the fitting of the IDB. ECE was significant higher in isosceles triangle compared to concave and convex IDR for both IDB and IRP (p ≤ 0.001). ECF was lower for IDB (0.6 ± 0.4N) compared to IRP (0.8 ± 0.5N; p ≤ 0.001). ECE in relation to ECF increases with smaller IDB. For IRP highest values of ECF were found in the smallest IDR. Conclusions Within the limitations of an in vitro study, size fitted IDB cleaned more effectively at lower forces compared to conical IRP.
topic Oral hygiene
Interdental brushes
Mechanical plaque control
Interdental cleaning efficacy
url https://doi.org/10.1186/s12903-021-01558-4
work_keys_str_mv AT christiangraetz invitrocomparisonofcleaningefficacyandforceofcylindricinterdentalbrushversusaninterdentalrubberpick
AT kristinaschoepke invitrocomparisonofcleaningefficacyandforceofcylindricinterdentalbrushversusaninterdentalrubberpick
AT johannarabe invitrocomparisonofcleaningefficacyandforceofcylindricinterdentalbrushversusaninterdentalrubberpick
AT susanneschorr invitrocomparisonofcleaningefficacyandforceofcylindricinterdentalbrushversusaninterdentalrubberpick
AT antjegeiken invitrocomparisonofcleaningefficacyandforceofcylindricinterdentalbrushversusaninterdentalrubberpick
AT davidchristofzik invitrocomparisonofcleaningefficacyandforceofcylindricinterdentalbrushversusaninterdentalrubberpick
AT thomasrinder invitrocomparisonofcleaningefficacyandforceofcylindricinterdentalbrushversusaninterdentalrubberpick
AT christofedorfer invitrocomparisonofcleaningefficacyandforceofcylindricinterdentalbrushversusaninterdentalrubberpick
AT sonjasalzer invitrocomparisonofcleaningefficacyandforceofcylindricinterdentalbrushversusaninterdentalrubberpick
_version_ 1721521988295458816