Plaque-removing Effects of Interdental Instruments in Molar Region

Abstract

Many types of interdental instrument, such as dental floss and interdental brushes, can be purchased easily and sell in large numbers. Many studies have compared the effects of such instruments. Few studies have investigated their relationship with regions of residual plaque, however. The purpose of this study was to compare rates of plaque removal from the mesial and distal surfaces of the bilateral maxillary and mandibular premolars and molars among 3 types of interdental instrument: finger-winding-dental floss, holder-type dental floss, and an interdental brush. Prior to the experiment, the artificial teeth in a jaw model were removed for application of artificial plaque. The teeth were then replaced and the model attached to a phantom. An operator brushed the teeth in a posture close to that adopted in actual tooth brushing with each type of instrument, after which the plaque removal rate was compared among them. The rate of plaque removal using finger-winding floss was the highest, although this type of instrument is less easy to hold than the others. The rate with a handle-equipped interdental instrument showed a decrease in some regions, although it is easy to hold. The results of this study suggest that the type of interdental instrument used should differ depending on the region to be cleaned.

Comparison between the effectiveness of Dental tape, Flosser®, and Superfloss® in controlling interproximal biofilm: A randomized and clinical study

“…Other study compared the percentage of plaque removal with three different instruments for interdental use, namely: Dental floss, interproximal brush, and dental floss holder (Flosser®) and showed that the control is different in different oral regions and it also shows that floss had the best PIs, despite the fact that it was easier to use Flosser®. [4] In this regard, our study also showed, through a questionnaire and represented in [Table 3], the preference for Flosser® by patients who reported greater ease of use.…”

“…On the other hand, the direction of brushing in interdental regions with holder floss is likely to be limited, which may result in plaque being left unremoved in specific regions, although this type of instrument has an advantage over finger-winding floss in terms of ease of holding. [4] Our clinical research on the effectiveness of different interproximal cleaning methods (dental tape, Flosser®, and Superfloss®) for the control of biofilm [Figure 1], which was measured through plaque and BIs, showed that the Flosser® apparatus, which consists of a supported tape for a small plastic handle, presented a better result in relation to the initial indexes [Tables 1 and 2] and the indexes after the use of the other apparatuses used [Tables 1 and 2]. This result is understood by noting that Flosser® makes the interproximal cleaning process more practical, since it does not require as much manual dexterity when compared to dental tape and Superfloss®.…”

“…Several studies have compared the effects of various types of interdental instruments on plaque control. [4] Periodontitis is the most common chronic inflammatory noncommunicable disease in humans. According to the Global Burden of Disease 2010 study, the prevalence (1990-2010) of severe periodontitis was 11.2%, representing the sixth most prevalent condition in the world and the milder forms of periodontitis may be as high as 50%.…”

Efficacy of an interdental brush in cleaning artificial plaque on a 3D-printed model base

“…In this study, IDB of a size greater than the given embrasure gave the optimal performance diameters of 1.2 and 1.5 mm at 0.7 and 1.2 mm embrasures, respectively. A previous study presented the 10th cycle on the molar using dental floss, holder-type dental floss, and IDBs (size SSS) and observed the mesial side [ 25 ]. In this study, the cleaning efficacy was shown in the order of floss (53%), IDBs (46%), and floss holder (28%), but since the embrasure size was not specified, it was somewhat difficult to interpret this as a quantitative experimental result.…”