New experimental setup for the measurement of cleaning efficacy and force of interdental aids in 3D-reproduced interdental areas.
3D printing
Cleaning efficacy
In vitro procedure
Mechanical plaque control
Resistance to insertion
Rubber bristle interdental cleaner
Journal
BMC oral health
ISSN: 1472-6831
Titre abrégé: BMC Oral Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088684
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 05 2020
08 05 2020
Historique:
received:
08
02
2020
accepted:
29
04
2020
entrez:
10
5
2020
pubmed:
10
5
2020
medline:
13
11
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Interdental rubber picks (IRP) have become a frequent and convenient alternative for interdental cleaning. However, only little evidence exists supporting the effectiveness of newer designs available on the market. Therefore, a new in vitro model was evaluated to measure the experimental cleaning efficacy (ECE), as well as the force needed for insertion and during the use of IRP, with high reproducibility. Five different sizes of commercially marketed IRP with elastomeric fingers (IRP-F) (GUM SOFT-PICKS® Advanced, Sunstar Deutschland GmbH, Schönau, Germany) or slats (IRP-S) (TePe EasyPick™, TePe D-A-CH GmbH, Hamburg, Germany) were tested. Interdental tooth surfaces were reproduced by a 3D-printer (Form 2, Formlabs Sommerville, MA, USA) according to human teeth and matched to morphologically equivalent pairs (isosceles triangle, concave, convex) fitting to different gap sizes (1.0 mm, 1.1 mm, 1.3 mm). The pre-/post brushing situations at interdental areas (standardized cleaning, computer aided ten cycles) were photographically recorded and quantified by digital image subtraction to calculate ECE [%]. Forces were registered with a load cell [N]. IRP-F have to be inserted with significant higher forces of 3.2 ± 1.8 N compared to IRP-S (2.0 ± 1.6 N; p < 0.001) independent of the size and type of artificial interdental area. During cleaning process IRP-S showed significantly lower values for pushing/pulling (1.0 ± 0.8 N/0.5 ± 0.4 N) compared to IRP-F (1.6 ± 0.8 N/0.7 ± 0.3 N; p < 0.001) concomitant to significantly lower ECE (19.1 ± 9.8 vs. 21.7 ± 10.0%, p = 0.002). Highest ECE was measured with largest size of IRP-F/IRP-S independent the morphology of interdental area. New interdental cleaning aids can be tested by the new experimental setup supported by 3D printing technology. Within the limitations of an in vitro study, IRP-F cleaned more effectively at higher forces compared to IRP-S.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Interdental rubber picks (IRP) have become a frequent and convenient alternative for interdental cleaning. However, only little evidence exists supporting the effectiveness of newer designs available on the market. Therefore, a new in vitro model was evaluated to measure the experimental cleaning efficacy (ECE), as well as the force needed for insertion and during the use of IRP, with high reproducibility.
METHODS
Five different sizes of commercially marketed IRP with elastomeric fingers (IRP-F) (GUM SOFT-PICKS® Advanced, Sunstar Deutschland GmbH, Schönau, Germany) or slats (IRP-S) (TePe EasyPick™, TePe D-A-CH GmbH, Hamburg, Germany) were tested. Interdental tooth surfaces were reproduced by a 3D-printer (Form 2, Formlabs Sommerville, MA, USA) according to human teeth and matched to morphologically equivalent pairs (isosceles triangle, concave, convex) fitting to different gap sizes (1.0 mm, 1.1 mm, 1.3 mm). The pre-/post brushing situations at interdental areas (standardized cleaning, computer aided ten cycles) were photographically recorded and quantified by digital image subtraction to calculate ECE [%]. Forces were registered with a load cell [N].
RESULTS
IRP-F have to be inserted with significant higher forces of 3.2 ± 1.8 N compared to IRP-S (2.0 ± 1.6 N; p < 0.001) independent of the size and type of artificial interdental area. During cleaning process IRP-S showed significantly lower values for pushing/pulling (1.0 ± 0.8 N/0.5 ± 0.4 N) compared to IRP-F (1.6 ± 0.8 N/0.7 ± 0.3 N; p < 0.001) concomitant to significantly lower ECE (19.1 ± 9.8 vs. 21.7 ± 10.0%, p = 0.002). Highest ECE was measured with largest size of IRP-F/IRP-S independent the morphology of interdental area.
CONCLUSIONS
New interdental cleaning aids can be tested by the new experimental setup supported by 3D printing technology. Within the limitations of an in vitro study, IRP-F cleaned more effectively at higher forces compared to IRP-S.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32384897
doi: 10.1186/s12903-020-01129-z
pii: 10.1186/s12903-020-01129-z
pmc: PMC7206737
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
136Références
Int J Dent Hyg. 2019 Nov;17(4):369-380
pubmed: 31152632
J Clin Dent. 2006;17(3):79-83
pubmed: 17022370
J Dent Hyg. 2020 Feb;94(1):6-13
pubmed: 32127424
Swiss Dent J. 2019 Mar 25;129(5):360-367
pubmed: 30907568
Clin Oral Investig. 2006 Dec;10(4):297-304
pubmed: 16896833
J Periodontol. 2018 May;89(5):558-570
pubmed: 29520910
J Clin Periodontol. 2015 Apr;42 Suppl 16:S92-105
pubmed: 25581718
J Indian Soc Periodontol. 2019 Nov-Dec;23(6):504-510
pubmed: 31849394
Clin Oral Implants Res. 2012 May;23(5):635-40
pubmed: 22146002
J Orthod. 2016 Mar;43(1):39-46
pubmed: 26282121
J Periodontol. 1998 Jul;69(7):759-64
pubmed: 9706852
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019 Apr 10;4:CD012018
pubmed: 30968949
Dent J (Basel). 2019 Jun 01;7(2):
pubmed: 31159354
Int J Dent Hyg. 2018 Aug;16(3):380-388
pubmed: 28952192
Int J Dent Hyg. 2008 Nov;6(4):253-64
pubmed: 19138177
Front Public Health. 2019 May 08;7:91
pubmed: 31192180
Int J Dent Hyg. 2018 Aug;16(3):389-396
pubmed: 28971569
J Orofac Orthop. 2019 Jul;80(4):194-204
pubmed: 31172199
J Periodontol. 1973 Jul;44(7):396-405
pubmed: 4514570
Periodontol 2000. 2011 Feb;55(1):104-23
pubmed: 21134231
Clin Oral Investig. 2014 Sep;18(7):1873-80
pubmed: 24407549