Clinical efficacy of flossing versus use of antimicrobial rinses.

BACKGROUND: Dental floss is only used by a small part of the population on a daily basis. Therefore, an easy, applicable alternative is needed. This alternative could be a mouthrinse with antimicrobial activity for daily use. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of two mouthrinses in reducing interdental plaque and gingivitis compared to dental floss. METHODS: A total of 156 healthy volunteers were randomly assigned to the following groups: 1) toothbrushing and rinsing (0.06% chlorhexidine and 0.025% fluoride); 2) toothbrushing and rinsing (0.1% cetylpyridiniumchloride and 0.025% fluoride); 3) toothbrushing and flossing; and 4) toothbrushing only (N = 39 subjects in each group). At baseline, the modified proximal plaque index (MPPI) and papillary bleeding index (PBI) were recorded. Thereafter, subjects had to brush in the usual manner during 8 weeks. Additionally, test groups had to rinse once a day (groups 1 and 2: 30 seconds) or to floss (group 3). Eight weeks after baseline, indices were recorded again and improvements were calculated. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Bonferroni test served for statistical analysis. RESULTS: After 8 weeks, reductions for all indices were found in all groups (P <0.05). With respect to the MPPI, mouthrinse groups performed better than the control and floss groups: 1) 0.73; 2) 0.82; 3) 0.40; and 4) 0.32 (P <0.05). The PBI showed no statistically significant difference between groups: 1) 0.46; 2); 0.50; 3); 0.42; and 4) 0.37. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that, in combination with toothbrushing, daily use of the tested mouthrinses may result in a higher interproximal plaque reduction than daily flossing.

Efficacy of the Cybersonic in comparison with the Braun 3D Excel and a manual toothbrush.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the efficacy of two power toothbrushes (Cybersonic and Braun 3D Excel) and one manual brush (Elmex super 29). MATERIAL AND METHODS: After professional toothcleaning 120 subjects were randomly assigned to three groups. Four weeks later, at baseline, the Quigley-Hein plaque index (QHI), the modified approximal plaque index (API), and the papillary bleeding index (PBI) were recorded. Thereafter the subjects used the assigned toothbrushes for 8 weeks. Improvements of the indices after 4 and 8 weeks were calculated as medians. Kruskal-Wallis- and Mann-Whitney U-test served for statistical analysis. RESULTS: All indices showed statistically significant reductions for both power toothbrushes which were superior to the manual brush (4 weeks: Cybersonic: API, 0.21; PBI, 0.25; QHI, 0.23; Braun: API, 0.20; PBI, 0.39; QHI, 0.22; Elmex: API, 0.04; PBI, 0.02; QHI, 0.07; 8 weeks: Cybersonic: API, 0.28; PBI, 0.36; QHI, 0.41; Braun: API, 0.36; PBI, 0.61; QHI, 0.35; Elmex: API, 0.03; PBI, 0.10; QHI, 0.08; p<0.001). The Braun was superior to the Cybersonic with respect to API after 8 weeks (p<0.05) and PBI after 4 and 8 weeks (p<0.01). CONCLUSION: Cybersonic and Braun 3D Excel may be more efficacious than a manual toothbrush in removing plaque and reducing gingivitis.