Penetration of fluids into peridontal pockets using a powered toothebrush/irrigator device

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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This study was a single-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial. The researchers evaluated a powered brush/irrigating device (HydraBrush Oral Health System™; OHS) for its safety and ability to deliver a solution to the bottom of 5-6 mm pockets, compared to rinsing alone with a solution following brushing with a powered toothbrush (Sonicare Elite™ 7800; SE). An evaluation technique to measure the quantity and quality of solution able to enter the pocket was also introduced in this project. 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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)30-39
Number of pages10
JournalJournal of Contemporary Dental Practice
Volume7
Issue number3
StatePublished - Jul 1 2006

Fingerprint

Equipment and Supplies
Reading
Erythrosine
Periodontal Pocket
Oral Health
Mouth
Analysis of Variance
Randomized Controlled Trials
Research Personnel
Hemorrhage
Safety
Water

Keywords

  • And plaque removal
  • Oral rinsing
  • Periodontal irrigation
  • Powered toothbrush

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Dentistry(all)

Cite this

Penetration of fluids into peridontal pockets using a powered toothebrush/irrigator device. / Brackett, Martha G; Drisko, Connie L.; Thompson, Ana L; Waller, Jennifer L; Marshall, Donna L.; Schuster, George S.

In: Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice, Vol. 7, No. 3, 01.07.2006, p. 30-39.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{4dbdf10dc9ac4912950489e53371057e,
title = "Penetration of fluids into peridontal pockets using a powered toothebrush/irrigator device",
abstract = "This study was a single-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial. The researchers evaluated a powered brush/irrigating device (HydraBrush Oral Health System™; OHS) for its safety and ability to deliver a solution to the bottom of 5-6 mm pockets, compared to rinsing alone with a solution following brushing with a powered toothbrush (Sonicare Elite™ 7800; SE). An evaluation technique to measure the quantity and quality of solution able to enter the pocket was also introduced in this project. 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.",
keywords = "And plaque removal, Oral rinsing, Periodontal irrigation, Powered toothbrush",
author = "Brackett, {Martha G} and Drisko, {Connie L.} and Thompson, {Ana L} and Waller, {Jennifer L} and Marshall, {Donna L.} and Schuster, {George S.}",
year = "2006",
month = "7",
day = "1",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "7",
pages = "30--39",
journal = "Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice",
issn = "1526-3711",
publisher = "Procter & Gamble Co.",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Penetration of fluids into peridontal pockets using a powered toothebrush/irrigator device

AU - Brackett, Martha G

AU - Drisko, Connie L.

AU - Thompson, Ana L

AU - Waller, Jennifer L

AU - Marshall, Donna L.

AU - Schuster, George S.

PY - 2006/7/1

Y1 - 2006/7/1

N2 - This study was a single-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial. The researchers evaluated a powered brush/irrigating device (HydraBrush Oral Health System™; OHS) for its safety and ability to deliver a solution to the bottom of 5-6 mm pockets, compared to rinsing alone with a solution following brushing with a powered toothbrush (Sonicare Elite™ 7800; SE). An evaluation technique to measure the quantity and quality of solution able to enter the pocket was also introduced in this project. 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.

AB - This study was a single-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial. The researchers evaluated a powered brush/irrigating device (HydraBrush Oral Health System™; OHS) for its safety and ability to deliver a solution to the bottom of 5-6 mm pockets, compared to rinsing alone with a solution following brushing with a powered toothbrush (Sonicare Elite™ 7800; SE). An evaluation technique to measure the quantity and quality of solution able to enter the pocket was also introduced in this project. 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.

KW - And plaque removal

KW - Oral rinsing

KW - Periodontal irrigation

KW - Powered toothbrush

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=33746501525&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=33746501525&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 7

SP - 30

EP - 39

JO - Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

JF - Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice

SN - 1526-3711

IS - 3

ER -