Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
The primary objective of this study was to compare two different interproximal devices, water flosser and dental floss around implants in several clinical parameters
This study was a randomized, controlled clinical trial in a single center. All clinical measurements were taken by a single blinded investigator (Periodontal Resident) while a single dental hygienist was responsible for prophylaxis and delivery of oral hygiene instructions to the study participants. At each appointment 5 clinical parameters were recorded: Full Mouth Plaque Score (FMPS) and Quigley-Hein plaque index (QHI) of the implants after the use of a disclosing solution, Probing Depth (PD), Bleeding on Probing (BOP) of the study implants recorded at 6 sites (distobuccal, mid-buccal, mesiobuccal, distolingual, mid-lingual and mesiolingual) using a UNC 12 Colorvue probe and the width of the keratinized tissue (KT) at the buccal surface of the study implants. Randomization between the 2 groups was achieved using computerized randomization scheme (https://en.calc-site.com/randoms/grouping).
Group A (control): patients were instructed to floss with TePe Bridge and Implant Floss once a day, preferably at nighttime.
Group B (test): patients were provided with Waterpik Water Flosser and instructed to water floss around the implant once a day, preferably at nighttime.
During each appointment the study investigator measured clinical parameters and participants received oral hygiene instructions (OHI) and supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) by a single dental hygienist. Once the study was concluded patients were asked to fill-out a 2 question questionnaire inquiring how much they liked their interproximal device and how easy it was to be used in a scale 1 to 5.
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| water flosser | Experimental | patient will be provided with Waterpik Water Flosser and instructed to water floss around the implant once a day, preferably at nighttime |
|
| dental floss | Active Comparator | patient will be instructed to floss with TePe Bridge and Implant Floss once a day, preferably at nighttime |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| comparing interdental floss to water flosser around dental implants | Device | to determine the effectiveness in reducing the bleeding on probing (BOP) index around dental implants |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Change in BOP (bleeding on probing) index around dental implants | to determine the effectiveness of a waterfloss system compared to flossing in changing the bleeding on probing (BOP) index around dental implants. BOP is a sign of inflammation and is recorded as yes/no (yes for bleeding, no for absence of bleeding). BOP is a percentage calculated by dividing the number of bleeding sites divided by the total number of sites of each implant. A lower percentage indicates lower inflammation | All participants have been seen at baseline, follow-up 1 (interval ranging between 3 to 6 months) |
| Full Mouth Plaque Score (FMPS) | to determine the differences between water flosser compared to flossing in changing the Full Mouth Plaque Score (FMPS). FMPS is a percentage calculated by dividing the number of plaque containing surfaces divided by the total number of available surfaces of each tooth/implant. A lower percentage indicates lower total plaque and means better plaque control | All participants have been seen at baseline, follow-up 1 (interval ranging between 3 to 6 months) |
| Quigley-Hein plaque index (QHI) around dental implants | to determine the differences of a waterfloss system compared to flossing in (QHI) around dental implants. Quigley-Hein plaque index (QHI) is a scale 0 to 5. 0 no plaque.
A lower number indicates better plaque control. | All participants have been seen at baseline, follow-up 1 (interval ranging between 3 to 6 months) |
| keratinized tissue (KT) around dental implants | to evaluate the differences of a waterfloss system compared to flossing in the width of keratinized tissue (KT) around dental implants. KT is the stratified, squamous epithelium, that lines the vestibular and oral surfaces of the gingiva. |
Not provided
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| University of Manitoba | Winnipeg | Manitoba | R3E 0W2 | Canada |
| PubMed Identifier | Type | Citation | Retractions |
|---|---|---|---|
| 11952735 | Background | Testori T, Del Fabbro M, Feldman S, Vincenzi G, Sullivan D, Rossi R Jr, Anitua E, Bianchi F, Francetti L, Weinstein RL. A multicenter prospective evaluation of 2-months loaded Osseotite implants placed in the posterior jaws: 3-year follow-up results. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2002 Apr;13(2):154-61. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-0501.2002.130205.x. | |
| 26261052 |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Type | Date | Date Unknown |
|---|---|---|
| Release | Jul 12, 2021 | |
| Unrelease | Jul 15, 2021 |
Not provided
Not provided
| Release Date | Unrelease Date | Unrelease Date Unknown | Reset Date | MCP Release Number |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 12, 2021 | Jul 15, 2021 | |||
| Jul 19, 2021 |
Randomized, controlled clinical trial in a single center.
Not provided
Not provided
All clinical measurements were taken by a single blinded investigator (Periodontal Resident) while a single dental hygienist was responsible for prophylaxis and delivery of oral hygiene instructions to the study participants
| All participants have been seen at baseline, follow-up 1 (interval ranging between 3 to 6 months) |
| Probing Depth (PD) around dental implants | to evaluate the differences of a waterfloss system compared to flossing in Probing Depth (PD) around dental implants. PD is the measurement of the depth of a sulcus by measuring in millimeters the distance from a gingival margin to the base of the sulcus with a calibrated periodontal probe. | All participants have been seen at baseline, follow-up 1 (interval ranging between 3 to 6 months) |
| van Velzen FJ, Lang NP, Schulten EA, Ten Bruggenkate CM. Dental floss as a possible risk for the development of peri-implant disease: an observational study of 10 cases. Clin Oral Implants Res. 2016 May;27(5):618-21. doi: 10.1111/clr.12650. Epub 2015 Aug 11. |
| 27183086 | Background | Montevecchi M, De Blasi V, Checchi L. Is Implant Flossing a Risk-Free Procedure? A Case Report with a 6-year Follow-up. Int J Oral Maxillofac Implants. 2016 May-Jun;31(3):e79-83. doi: 10.11607/jomi.4263. |
| 30968949 | Background | Worthington HV, MacDonald L, Poklepovic Pericic T, Sambunjak D, Johnson TM, Imai P, Clarkson JE. Home use of interdental cleaning devices, in addition to toothbrushing, for preventing and controlling periodontal diseases and dental caries. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Apr 10;4(4):CD012018. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD012018.pub2. |
| 30601226 | Background | Kelekis-Cholakis A, Rothney J. Maintenance of Implant Patients: A Narrative Review. Implant Dent. 2019 Apr;28(2):161-172. doi: 10.1097/ID.0000000000000837. |
| 24568169 | Background | Magnuson B, Harsono M, Stark PC, Lyle D, Kugel G, Perry R. Comparison of the effect of two interdental cleaning devices around implants on the reduction of bleeding: a 30-day randomized clinical trial. Compend Contin Educ Dent. 2013 Nov-Dec;34 Spec No 8:2-7. |
| Aug 10, 2021 |
| 5 |