Limits...
Interproximal biofilm removal by intervallic use of a sonic toothbrush compared to an oral irrigation system.

Tawakoli PN, Sauer B, Becker K, Buchalla W, Attin T - BMC Oral Health (2015)

Bottom Line: Highest reduction in metabolic activity was recorded significantly for the oral irrigator used for 10 s (residual activity per day d1: WF 17.9 %, WPa 58.8 %, WPi 82.5 %, CO 89.6 %; d2: WF 36.8 %, WPa 85.2 %, WPi 82.5 %, CO 90.0 %; d3: WF 17.2.%, WPa 79.6 %, WPi 96.3 %, CO 116.3 %).CFU data confirmed the graduations between the groups.Cleaning of interproximal regions achieved better success with an oral irrigator as compared to the use of a sonic toothbrush. (350/350 words).

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Clinic of Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology, University of Zurich, Center of Dental Medicine, 8032, Zurich, Switzerland. nina.tawakoli@zzm.uzh.ch.

ABSTRACT

Background: The purpose of this in-vitro study was to investigate the potential of biofilm removal in interproximal tooth regions using intervallic cleaning with an oral irrigator or a sonic toothbrush.

Methods: Three-species biofilms (Streptococcus mutans (OMZ 918), Streptococcus oralis SK 248 (OMZ 60), Actinomyces naeslundii (OMZ 745)) were grown on hydroxyapatite discs for 3 days in culture media. Every 24 h, specimens were incubated for 15 min in resazurin solution (i.e., culture medium and 10 % v/v alamarBlue®) to measure the metabolic activity with a fluorescence spectrophotometer in relative fluorescence units (rfu) at baseline. Then, specimens were fixed in interproximal holding devices and underwent treatment with an oral irrigator (WF; Waterpik® Sensonic WP-100E), an active sonic toothbrush (WPa), or an inactive sonic toothbrush (WPi; Waterpik® Sensonic SR-3000E) for 10 s (n = 18/group). Untreated biofilms served as controls (CO). After treatment, bacterial activity was re-measured, and specimens were re-grown in fresh medium for 24 h until next cleaning procedure. Altogether, cleaning was repeated in intervals of three treatment days (d1, d2, d3). After d3, SEM images were taken (n = 8) and CFU was measured (n = 3). Metabolic activity was analyzed for each disc separately, rfu values were averaged for d1 to compare initial biofilm stability, and ratios of baseline and post-treatment values were compared. Results were analyzed using ANOVA with the post-hoc Scheffé test, or Kruskal-Wallis with post-hoc Mann-Whitney test.

Results: Median baseline rfu-values of d1 resulted in 7821.8 rfu (interquartile range = 5114.5). Highest reduction in metabolic activity was recorded significantly for the oral irrigator used for 10 s (residual activity per day d1: WF 17.9 %, WPa 58.8 %, WPi 82.5 %, CO 89.6 %; d2: WF 36.8 %, WPa 85.2 %, WPi 82.5 %, CO 90.0 %; d3: WF 17.2.%, WPa 79.6 %, WPi 96.3 %, CO 116.3 %). SEM images of untreated specimens (CO) and specimens treated with the sonic toothbrush (WPa and WPi) showed huge amounts of biofilm, while oral irrigator-treated specimens (WF) revealed barely any bacteria. CFU data confirmed the graduations between the groups.

Conclusions: Cleaning of interproximal regions achieved better success with an oral irrigator as compared to the use of a sonic toothbrush. (350/350 words).

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

a Draft of the used holding device with an adjustable load (*); Interproximal specimen position within the chamber (arrow). Oral devices can be positioned perpendicularly to the fixated specimens, as illustrated in b) for the sonic toothbrush and c) for the oral irrigator
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4526281&req=5

Fig1: a Draft of the used holding device with an adjustable load (*); Interproximal specimen position within the chamber (arrow). Oral devices can be positioned perpendicularly to the fixated specimens, as illustrated in b) for the sonic toothbrush and c) for the oral irrigator

Mentions: Specimens were divided into four groups. Three independent experiments were performed to obtain n = 18 specimens per group (first experiment n = 4, second n = 6, last experiment n = 8 specimens per group). Each experiment consisted of three treatment days (d1, d2, d3). Prior to each treatment, measurements of the metabolic activity were performed to obtain baseline values for each specimen. Then, specimens were placed carefully into an interproximal device with 2 specimens in a distance of 0.5 mm face to face (Fig. 1). The brushing device for electric toothbrushes was build in a co-operation between the Institute of Fluid Dynamics, ETH Zürich and the Department of Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology of the University of Zurich, Switzerland. For experimentation, 25 ml water of 36 °C was pipetted into the device to cover the interproximal regions and the specimens. For the WF-group, the oral irrigator (Waterfloss, Waterpik® Sensonic WP-100E) was adjusted using the JT-100E Classic Jet Tip at a 90° angle towards the interproximal region as described in the manufacturer’s information. The pressure control was positioned at level 10 (highest water pressure) and activated for 10 s. Afterwards, the specimens were carefully taken from the interproximal device and restored in plates with 0.9 % NaCl. For the WPa-group, the sonic toothbrush (Waterpik® Sensonic SR-3000E) was adjusted onto the device using the respective standard brush head with a load of the brush head onto the interproximal region of < 0.9 N as measured for sonic toothbrushes (total load 70 ± 5 g) [2, 16]. The brushing was performed for 10 s under static conditions. For the specimens of the WPi-group, the procedures were repeated for the inactivated brushes (power off). Specimens without treatment were used as control group (CO).Fig. 1


Interproximal biofilm removal by intervallic use of a sonic toothbrush compared to an oral irrigation system.

Tawakoli PN, Sauer B, Becker K, Buchalla W, Attin T - BMC Oral Health (2015)

a Draft of the used holding device with an adjustable load (*); Interproximal specimen position within the chamber (arrow). Oral devices can be positioned perpendicularly to the fixated specimens, as illustrated in b) for the sonic toothbrush and c) for the oral irrigator
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4526281&req=5

Fig1: a Draft of the used holding device with an adjustable load (*); Interproximal specimen position within the chamber (arrow). Oral devices can be positioned perpendicularly to the fixated specimens, as illustrated in b) for the sonic toothbrush and c) for the oral irrigator
Mentions: Specimens were divided into four groups. Three independent experiments were performed to obtain n = 18 specimens per group (first experiment n = 4, second n = 6, last experiment n = 8 specimens per group). Each experiment consisted of three treatment days (d1, d2, d3). Prior to each treatment, measurements of the metabolic activity were performed to obtain baseline values for each specimen. Then, specimens were placed carefully into an interproximal device with 2 specimens in a distance of 0.5 mm face to face (Fig. 1). The brushing device for electric toothbrushes was build in a co-operation between the Institute of Fluid Dynamics, ETH Zürich and the Department of Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology of the University of Zurich, Switzerland. For experimentation, 25 ml water of 36 °C was pipetted into the device to cover the interproximal regions and the specimens. For the WF-group, the oral irrigator (Waterfloss, Waterpik® Sensonic WP-100E) was adjusted using the JT-100E Classic Jet Tip at a 90° angle towards the interproximal region as described in the manufacturer’s information. The pressure control was positioned at level 10 (highest water pressure) and activated for 10 s. Afterwards, the specimens were carefully taken from the interproximal device and restored in plates with 0.9 % NaCl. For the WPa-group, the sonic toothbrush (Waterpik® Sensonic SR-3000E) was adjusted onto the device using the respective standard brush head with a load of the brush head onto the interproximal region of < 0.9 N as measured for sonic toothbrushes (total load 70 ± 5 g) [2, 16]. The brushing was performed for 10 s under static conditions. For the specimens of the WPi-group, the procedures were repeated for the inactivated brushes (power off). Specimens without treatment were used as control group (CO).Fig. 1

Bottom Line: Highest reduction in metabolic activity was recorded significantly for the oral irrigator used for 10 s (residual activity per day d1: WF 17.9 %, WPa 58.8 %, WPi 82.5 %, CO 89.6 %; d2: WF 36.8 %, WPa 85.2 %, WPi 82.5 %, CO 90.0 %; d3: WF 17.2.%, WPa 79.6 %, WPi 96.3 %, CO 116.3 %).CFU data confirmed the graduations between the groups.Cleaning of interproximal regions achieved better success with an oral irrigator as compared to the use of a sonic toothbrush. (350/350 words).

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Clinic of Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Cariology, University of Zurich, Center of Dental Medicine, 8032, Zurich, Switzerland. nina.tawakoli@zzm.uzh.ch.

ABSTRACT

Background: The purpose of this in-vitro study was to investigate the potential of biofilm removal in interproximal tooth regions using intervallic cleaning with an oral irrigator or a sonic toothbrush.

Methods: Three-species biofilms (Streptococcus mutans (OMZ 918), Streptococcus oralis SK 248 (OMZ 60), Actinomyces naeslundii (OMZ 745)) were grown on hydroxyapatite discs for 3 days in culture media. Every 24 h, specimens were incubated for 15 min in resazurin solution (i.e., culture medium and 10 % v/v alamarBlue®) to measure the metabolic activity with a fluorescence spectrophotometer in relative fluorescence units (rfu) at baseline. Then, specimens were fixed in interproximal holding devices and underwent treatment with an oral irrigator (WF; Waterpik® Sensonic WP-100E), an active sonic toothbrush (WPa), or an inactive sonic toothbrush (WPi; Waterpik® Sensonic SR-3000E) for 10 s (n = 18/group). Untreated biofilms served as controls (CO). After treatment, bacterial activity was re-measured, and specimens were re-grown in fresh medium for 24 h until next cleaning procedure. Altogether, cleaning was repeated in intervals of three treatment days (d1, d2, d3). After d3, SEM images were taken (n = 8) and CFU was measured (n = 3). Metabolic activity was analyzed for each disc separately, rfu values were averaged for d1 to compare initial biofilm stability, and ratios of baseline and post-treatment values were compared. Results were analyzed using ANOVA with the post-hoc Scheffé test, or Kruskal-Wallis with post-hoc Mann-Whitney test.

Results: Median baseline rfu-values of d1 resulted in 7821.8 rfu (interquartile range = 5114.5). Highest reduction in metabolic activity was recorded significantly for the oral irrigator used for 10 s (residual activity per day d1: WF 17.9 %, WPa 58.8 %, WPi 82.5 %, CO 89.6 %; d2: WF 36.8 %, WPa 85.2 %, WPi 82.5 %, CO 90.0 %; d3: WF 17.2.%, WPa 79.6 %, WPi 96.3 %, CO 116.3 %). SEM images of untreated specimens (CO) and specimens treated with the sonic toothbrush (WPa and WPi) showed huge amounts of biofilm, while oral irrigator-treated specimens (WF) revealed barely any bacteria. CFU data confirmed the graduations between the groups.

Conclusions: Cleaning of interproximal regions achieved better success with an oral irrigator as compared to the use of a sonic toothbrush. (350/350 words).

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus