A Comparison of the Efficacy of Interdental Floss to Water Flosser Around Dental Implants

University of Manitoba

Status

Completed

Conditions

Implant Site Bleeding

Treatments

Device: comparing interdental floss to water flosser around dental implants

Study type

Interventional

Funder types

Other

Identifiers

NCT04081311

H2019:298

Details and patient eligibility

About

The primary objective of this study was to compare two different interproximal devices, water flosser and dental floss around implants in several clinical parameters

Full description

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.

Enrollment

33 patients

Sex

All

Ages

18+ years old

Volunteers

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Inclusion criteria

Patients that present with at least a single implant with a screw-retained crown
Patients with general good health that do not have a condition contra-indicating routine dental treatment
Patients that are compliant with the research protocol and methods
Patients that have read, understood and signed the informed consent form

Exclusion criteria

Patients with implants with cemented crowns
Patients with any contact hypersensitivity to the related materials used in the study
Tobacco users (vaping included)
Patients unwilling to sign the informed consent form or follow the protocol of the study