Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Interdentales Reinigungsund Gingivaverletzungspotenzial von Interdentalzahnbürsten — eine Laboruntersuchung

Interdental cleaning and gingival injury potential of interdental toothbrushes — A laboratory investigation

  • Originalarbeit / Original Article
  • Published:
Oralprophylaxe & Kinderzahnheilkunde Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Zusammenfassung

Die effektive Reinigung der Interdentalräume mit Zahnbürsten ist eine Herausforderung. Ziel der vorliegenden In-vitro-Studie war es, die Reinigungseffizienz und gleichzeitig das Gingivaverletzungspotenzial einer elektrischen Schallzahnbürste mit Singlekopf (Waterpik) und zweier Einbüschelbürsten (Curaprox 1009; Lactona Interdental Brush) fur den Interdentalbereich zu untersuchen.

Die Bürsten wurden in einer Bürstmaschine evaluiert, indem Testmodelle (Oberkiefersextanten), bei welchen schwarze Modellzähne weiß beschichtet wurden, mit standardisierten horizontalen Bewegungen bearbeitet wurden. Danach wurden die schwarzen (d.h. gereinigten) Flächen planimetrisch erfasst. Das Verletzungspotenzial wurde anhand des Frontsegments von Schweineunterkiefern untersucht. Die Testbürsten wurden wiederum mit der Bürstmaschine über die Gingiva geführt. Vor und nach jeder Behandlung wurde die Schweinegingiva mit einem Plaquerevelator gefärbt.

Damit wurden verletzte Gingivastellen/-flächen sichtbar gemacht und vermessen. Die Evaluationen fanden nach jeweils 15, 30, 60 und 120 Sekunden Bürstdauer statt.

Die beste Reinigungsleistung über alle gemessenen Interdentalräume zeigte die elektrische Schallzahnbürste mit 46 %, während die Reinigungsleistung der Einbüschelbürste von Lactona 14,8 % betrug und die der Einbüschelbürste von Curaprox 5 %. Die Gingiva wurde zu jedem Untersuchungszeitpunkt am deutlichsten von der elektrischen Schallzahnbürste mit Singlekopf (Waterpik) verletzt, gefolgt von der Einbüschelbürste von Curaprox. Die geringsten Verletzungen der Schweine-gingiva wurden von der Einbüschelbürste von Lactona verursacht. Im Vergleich zwischen den Handzahnbürsten zeigte die letztgenannte Bürste eine besser Reinigungswirkung in Kombination mit einem kleineren Verletzungspotenzial. Das Ziel, einen möglichst hohen Sauberkeitsgrad zu erreichen und dabei wenig Schaden anzurichten, ist also wichtig und sollte bei der Evaluation und Wahl von Zahnbürsten im Vordergrund stehen.

Summary

The effective cleaning of interdental spaces using toothbrushes is a challenge. The aim of the present in vitro study was to evaluate on the one hand the interdental cleaning efficiency and on the other hand the gingival injury potential of an electric single-headed sonic toothbrush (Waterpik) and two single-tufted manual toothbrushes (Curaprox 1009; Lactona Interdental Brush).

Brushes were evaluated using a brushing device. Test dental casts (maxillary sextants) consisting of black teeth coated with white paint were brushed using standardized horizontal movements. Thereafter, black (i.e. cleaned) areas were measured planimetrically.

The soft tissue injury potential was evaluated using front segments of porcine mandibles. In the same brushing device, test brushes were moved over the gingiva. Before and after each treatment, the porcine mucosa was stained with a plaque disclosing agent to visualize injured areas, which could then be measured planimetrically as well. These evaluations were each made after 15, 30, 60, and 120 seconds of brushing. The statistical analysis was performed using non-parametric Mann-Whitney tests, and the level of significance was set at 5 %.

The best cleaning performance of 46% across all interdental spaces assessed was found with the electric sonic toothbrush (Waterpik), while the performances of the manual brushes from Lactona and Curaprox were 14.8 % and 5 %, respectively. At each point of evaluation, the gingiva was injured most markedly by the powered sonic toothbrush (Waterpik), followed by the manual Curaprox brush. The smallest damage of the porcine gingiva was produced by the manual Lactona brush. When comparing the manual toothbrushes, the Lactona product revealed a better cleaning performance combined with a smaller injury potential than the Curaprox brush. Thus, the prophylactic goal to achieve high degrees of cleaning while producing minimal damage is important and should have priority when evaluating and selecting toothbrushes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Literatur

  1. Breitenmoser J, Mormann W, Muhlemann HR: Damaging effects of toothbrush bristle end form on gingiva. J Periodontol 50: 212–216 (1979)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Claydon N C: Current concenpts in toothbrushing and interdental cleaning. Periodontol 2000 48: 10–22 (2008)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Danser MM, Timmerman MF, Ijerman Y, van der Velden U, Warren PR, van der Weijden FA: A comparison of electric toothbrushes in their potential to cause gingival abrasion of oral soft tissues. Am J Dent 11: 35–39 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Deacon SA, Glenny AM, Deery C, Robinson PG, Heanue M, Walmsley AD, Shaw WC: Different powered toothbrushes for plaque control and gingival health. Cochrane Database Syst Rev CD004971: 1–45 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Frandsen AM: Mechanical oral hygiene practices. In: Loe H, Kleinman DV, editors. Dental plaque control measures and oral hygiene practices. Oxford-Washington DC: IRL Press, 93–116 (1986)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Imfeld T, Sener B: Brushing time, -load and -speed of electric toothbrushes and gingiva. J Dent Res 77: 664 (1998)

    Google Scholar 

  7. Imfeld T, Sener B, Simonovic I: In-vitro-Untersuchung der mechanischen Wirkung von in der Schweiz handelsüblichen Handzahnbürsten. Acta Med Dent Helv 5: 37–47 (2000)

    Google Scholar 

  8. Joerss D, Wolff D, Raeth O, Rau P, Pioch T, Dorfer CE: Einfluss der Bürstenarchitektur auf die Reinigungsleistung und den Einfuhrwiederstand von Interdentalbürsten. Dtsch Zahnarztl Z 61: 305–309 (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  9. Kossak C, Jost-Brinkmann P: Plaque and gingivitis reduction in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances - comparison of toothbrushes and interdental cleaning aids. J Orofac Orthop 66: 20–38 (2005)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Krause AW, Carley WW, Webb WW: Fluorescent erythrosin B is preferable to trypan blue as a vital exclusion dye for mammalian cells in monolayer culture. J Histochem Cytochem 32: 1084–1090 (1984)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Lang NP, Cumming PR, Loe H: Toothbrushing frequency as it relates to plaque developement and gingival health. J Periodontol 44: 396–405 (1973)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Lang NP, Cumming PR, Loe H: Oral hygiene and gingival health in Danish dental students and faculty. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 5: 237–242 (1977)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Niedermann R: Effectivness of the Sonicare sonic toothbrush on reduction of plaque, gingivitis, probing pocket depth and subgigival bacteria in adolescent orthodontic patients. J Clin Dent 8: 15–19 (1997)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Saxer UP, Yankell SL: Impact of improved toothbrushes on dental diseases. I. Quintessence Int 28: 513–525 (1997)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Saxer UP, Yankell SL: Impact of improved toothbrushes on dental diseases. II. Quintessence Int 28: 573–593 (1997)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Sjogren K, Lundberg AB, Birkhed D, Dundgeon DJ, Johnson MR: Interproximal plaque mass and fluoride retention after brushing and flossing - a compartive study of powered toothbrushing, manual toothbrushing and flossing. Oral Health Prev Dent 2: 119–124 (2004)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Walker SR, Ingram P, Shelburne JD: Energy dispersive X-ray micro - analysis of vital dye (erythrosin B) stained cells. J Microsc 133: 3–4 (1984)

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Privatpraxis, Zugerstrasse 40, 6314, Unterägeri, Switzerland

    M. Vogel

  2. Klinik für Präventivzahnmedizin, Parodontologie und Kariologie, Zentrum für Zahnmedizin, Universität Zürich, Switzerland

    B. Sener, T. Attin & P. R. Schmidlin

  3. Abteilung für Biostatistik, ISPM, Universität Zürich, Hirschengraben 84, 8001, Zürich, Switzerland

    M. Roos

Authors
  1. M. Vogel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. B. Sener
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. M. Roos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. T. Attin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. P. R. Schmidlin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vogel, M., Sener, B., Roos, M. et al. Interdentales Reinigungsund Gingivaverletzungspotenzial von Interdentalzahnbürsten — eine Laboruntersuchung. Oralprophylaxe Kinderzahnheilkd 37, 72–81 (2015). https://doi.org/10.3238/OPKZH.2015.0072-0081

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.3238/OPKZH.2015.0072-0081

Schlüsselwörter

Keywords

Search

Navigation