The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

Register      Login

SEARCH WITHIN CONTENT

FIND ARTICLE

Volume / Issue

Online First

Archive
Related articles

VOLUME 7 , ISSUE 3 ( July, 2006 ) > List of Articles

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Penetration of Fluids into Peridontal Pockets Using a Powered Toothebrush/Irrigator Device

Ana L. Thompson, Martha Goêl Brackett, Connie L. Drisko, Jennifer L. Waller, Donna L. Marshall, George S. Schuster

Citation Information : Thompson AL, Brackett MG, Drisko CL, Waller JL, Marshall DL, Schuster GS. Penetration of Fluids into Peridontal Pockets Using a Powered Toothebrush/Irrigator Device. J Contemp Dent Pract 2006; 7 (3):30-39.

DOI: 10.5005/jcdp-7-3-30

License: CC BY-NC 3.0

Published Online: 01-07-2006

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2006; Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd.


Abstract

Methods

Subjects were randomized in one of two-groups: brush plus simultaneous irrigation (OHS) versus brush plus rinsing (SE). Subjects used their devices at home for two weeks. At the measurement visit, subjects used the OHS to irrigate and brush simultaneously for 1 minute (30 seconds per each side of the mouth) with a 0.01% erythrosine disclosing solution in 10 oz of distilled water. Control subjects brushed for 2 minutes with a SE followed by a 1 minute rinse with an identical disclosing solution. A blinded evaluator collected six samples of approximately of 1 μL of sucular fluid from six 5-6 mm evaluation sites. This was accomplished by inserting a microcapillary tip with a 20 μL micropipette in the sulcus. Two-group repeated measures ANOVA was used to examine differences in two measures of the disclosing solution between OHS and SE subjects; the spectrometer reading of the disclosing solutions, and by visual inspection of the samples (positive/negative) to determine the presence or absence of solution in the samples. Subjects’ diaries were collected. Bleeding and discomfort during the evaluation period was reported.

Results

Visually, OHS had a significantly greater proportion of solution taken from the base of 5-6 mm sites than the SE (p=0.0001). However, there was no statistical difference between the two groups (p=.1359) in the spectrophotometer readings.

Conclusion

The experimental device is more efficient in delivering a solution to the base of 5-6 mm pockets than rinsing following use of a control powered toothbrush. Both devices have demonstrated they are safe and well accepted by patients. The technique developed provides a useful method for quantitative and qualitative studies of solutions from the base of periodontal pockets.

Citation

Brackett MG, Drisko CL, Thompson AL, Waller JL, Marshall DL, Schuster GS. Penetration of Fluids into Periodontal Pockets Using a Powered Toothbrush/Irrigator Device. J Contemp Dent Pract 2006 July:(7)3:030-039.


PDF Share
  1. Subgingival penetration of an applied solution. Int J Periodontics Rest Dent. 1984;4(5):64-7.
  2. Access to subgingival plaque by disclosing agent using mouth rinsing and direct irrigation. J Clin Periodontol. 1980;7(4):300-8
  3. Subgingival delivery by an oral irrigation device. J Periodontology.1992; 63(5):469-72.
  4. Optimal dosage and method of delivering Chlorexidine solutions for the inhibition of dental plaque. J Periodontal Res. 1973; 8(2):57-62.
  5. The effect of irrigation with Chlorexidine or saline on plaque vitality. J Clin Periodontol 1995; 22(3):262-4.
  6. Effect of calculus and irrigator tip design on depth of subgingival irrigation. Int. J Periodontics Restorative Dent. 1993;13(3):288-9.
  7. Depth of penetration in periodontal pockets with oral irrigation. J Clin Periodontol. 1986;13(1):39-44.
  8. Direct irrigation and Subgingival plaque. J Clin Periodontol. 1982; 9(1):57-65.
  9. The effect of a Pulsated Water Pressure Cleaning Device on Oral Health. J Periodontology 1969; 40:667-670.
  10. Effect of High Pressure Water Jet on Oral Mucosa of Varied Density. J Periodontology 1969;40:593-598
  11. The Comparative Effectiveness of a Pulsating Oral irrigator as an Adjunct in Maintaining Oral Health. J Periodontology 1971; 42:37-39.
  12. Efficacy of the Sonicare toothbrush fluid dynamic action on removal of human supragingival plaque. J Clin Dent 1997;8:10-14
  13. J, and Stoodley, P. Influence of the Sonicare® toothbrush on the structure and thickness of laboratory grown Streptococcus mutans biofilms assessed by digital time-lapse and confocal microscopy. Am J of Dent. 2003;16(2):79-83
  14. Effect of sonic and mechanical toothbrushes on subgingival microbial flora: a comparative in vivo scanning electron microscopy study of 8 subjects. Quintessence Int. 2001;32(2):147-54
  15. A Comparative Clinical Study of the Safety and Efficacy of Three Toothbrushes. Am Acad J Periodontol. 1992;603-10.
  16. New Studies on Estimated and Actual Toothbrushing Times and Dentifrice Use. J Clin Dent. 1998;49-51.
  17. Formation, collection and significance of gingival crevice fluid J. Periodontology 2003; 31:32-42.
  18. Collection of gingival fluid and plasma for quantitative analysis. J Dent Res 1969; 48:159
  19. Scand J Dent Res 1991;99:406-12
  20. Comparison of Correlated Proportions using SAS® PROC GLM: a Simulation Study. Proceedings of the SouthEast SAS Users Group Tenth Annual Conference; 2002.
  21. A Simulation Study to Evaluate ANOVA and GEE for Comparing Correlated Proportions With Missing Values Proceedings of the SouthEast SAS Users Group Twelfth Annual Conference; 2004
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.