Cargando…
The Efficacy of the Three Types of Plaque Control Methods During Fixed Orthodontic Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial
Background: When intraoral orthodontic devices are used, it becomes significantly more difficult to remove plaque effectively. Dentists and orthodontic specialists can come up with more effective preventive strategies while patients are undergoing fixed orthodontic work if they have a deeper underst...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Cureus
2023
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10226844/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37261166 http://dx.doi.org/10.7759/cureus.38231 |
Sumario: | Background: When intraoral orthodontic devices are used, it becomes significantly more difficult to remove plaque effectively. Dentists and orthodontic specialists can come up with more effective preventive strategies while patients are undergoing fixed orthodontic work if they have a deeper understanding of the present scenario. In addition, individuals will become more aware of the importance of good dental hygiene habits as a result of this. Objective: To assess and compare the effectiveness of a manual toothbrush, machine-driven toothbrush, and conventional mechanical toothbrush coupled with mouth rinse in removing plaque and maintaining gingival health in patients undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment. Methods and materials: In this research, a total of 222 individuals who met the eligibility and exclusion requirements were randomly selected and offered their written consent. There were a total of 74 participants for each of the three different categories. Category A used a physically driven toothbrush. Category B used a motorized toothbrush. Category C used a physically driven toothbrush together with mouthwash containing 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate. All study participants were assessed at baseline, one-month follow-up, and two-month follow-up to document the preliminary information, including that of the modified papillary bleeding index (MPBI) by Muhlemann, plaque index (PI) introduced by Silness and Loe, and gingival index (GI) introduced by Loe and Silness. Results: In this study, the mean PI scores at the one-month and two-month follow-ups were minimum in Category C, while it was maximum in Category A at the two-month follow-up. The mean GI scores at the two-month follow-up were minimum in Category C, while it was maximum in Category A at the two-month follow-up. The mean MPBI scores at the two-month follow-up were minimum in Category C, while it was maximum in Category A. It was observed that participants in this trial who only used a typical mechanical brush experienced an increase in PI and GI scores after one and two months of follow-up. At the one-month and two-month follow-ups, it was noted that the values of PI, GI, and MPBI significantly decreased in the study participants using automated toothbrushes as well as in study participants using manual toothbrushes in conjunction with chlorhexidine mouthwash as compared to baseline values. However, when the three categories were compared, it was found that the research participants utilizing both a manual toothbrush and 0.2% chlorhexidine experienced the highest decreases in PI, GI, and MPBI values. Conclusion: The reduction in the scores of PI, GI, and MPBI was maximum in orthodontic patients after two months when they apply manual toothbrushing along with 0.2% chlorhexidine. |
---|