RESUMO
This study compared the effectiveness of three different types of electric toothbrushes, i.e., Interplak, Philips, and Rotadent, with a manual multitufted toothbrush (Blend-a-Med), in removing supragingival plaque and in preventing the development of gingivitis in adolescent patients with fixed orthodontic appliances. A single blind, cross-over, clinical trial was carried out in 36 adolescent patients, randomly divided into four equal groups. Every group tested each type of toothbrush, in a different sequence. Plaque and gingival scores were recorded at baseline and after 1 and 2 months of the test period. All patients received a professional prophylaxis after each clinical evaluation, except during the test period. The analysis of the data was performed with the nonparametric Friedman test. The results demonstrated, in essence, for all parameters that the manual toothbrush was the most effective. Of the three electric toothbrushes tested, the Philips toothbrush seemed to give slightly better results than the Interplak toothbrush, whereas Rotadent very clearly gave results inferior to all others. Personal preference on the four toothbrushes used revealed that the group as a whole least preferred a manual brush. However, the answers on the questionnaire did not always show a logical consistency. Therefore it should be interpreted with some caution.
Assuntos
Placa Dentária/terapia , Gengivite/prevenção & controle , Aparelhos Ortodônticos , Escovação Dentária/instrumentação , Adolescente , Criança , Estudos Cross-Over , Índice de Placa Dentária , Profilaxia Dentária , Desenho de Equipamento , Feminino , Seguimentos , Hemorragia Gengival/prevenção & controle , Humanos , Masculino , Satisfação do Paciente , Índice Periodontal , Método Simples-CegoRESUMO
Removable retainers have been used by clinicians since the early years of orthodontic practice. During the last decades, an increasing number of cases are retained with bonded lingual retainers. The current study was performed to evaluate whether significant differences in gingival conditions exist between patients who wear removable or fixed retainers. Differences in build-up of plaque and calculus were also investigated. Maxillary and mandibular measurements were taken at baseline (just before debonding) and 1, 3, and 6 months later, from canine to canine on 36 patients. Among these patients, 22 had fixed retainers, and 14 wore removable retainers. The gingival condition was scored according to three parameters: Modified Gingival Index, bleeding on probing, and gingival crevicular fluid flow. After staining with Diaplac, the Plaque Index was registered. The amount of calculus was measured with a calibrated periodontal probe. Gingival inflammation decreased from baseline throughout the entire period of retention. A comparable limited gingival inflammation was found in the presence of both types of retainers. Slightly more plaque and calculus were present on the lingual surfaces in the fixed retainer group. This did not result in more pronounced gingival inflammation than in the removable retainer group, within the evaluated period.