SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi / 2021 / Cilt: 31 - Sayı: 3

EVAULATION OF EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT TOOTHBRUSH TYPES ON PERIODONTAL STATUS IN ORTHODONTIC PATIENTS

FARKLI DİŞ FIRÇASI TİPLERİNİN ORTODONTİ HASTALARINDA PERİODONTAL DURUMA ETKİLERİNİN KARŞILAŞTIRILMASI

Mustafa Cihan YAVUZ
Meltem ALTUN
Süleyman Kutalmış BÜYÜK
Gökhan TÜRKER
Pages
433–438
Publication Date
2022-10-10
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Moreover, pain scores showedno significant difference between the toothbrush groups (p = 0.540).Conclusion: There were no differences in the periodontal parameters between the soft bristles toothbrushes and oft mediumbristles toothbrushes in orthodontic patients with self-ligating brackets.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the plaque removal efficacy of soft bristles toothbrushes (SBTB) compared withmedium bristles toothbrushes (MBTB) using clinical periodontal parameters in orthodontic patients with self-ligating brackets.Methods: A total of 32 orthodontic patients scheduled for fixed orthodontic treatment were selected for this prospective study.Patients were divided into randomly two groups brushing with tooth brusher type as follow SBTB and MBTB.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The bondedbracket plaque index (PI), and pocket depth values (PDV) were evaluated 1 week after bracket placement (T1), 2 weeks afterbracket placement (T2); and 3 weeks after bracket placement (T3).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Moreover, pain scores showedno significant difference between the toothbrush groups (p = 0.540).Conclusion: There were no differences in the periodontal parameters between the soft bristles toothbrushes and oft mediumbristles toothbrushes in orthodontic patients with self-ligating brackets.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the plaque removal efficacy of soft bristles toothbrushes (SBTB) compared withmedium bristles toothbrushes (MBTB) using clinical periodontal parameters in orthodontic patients with self-ligating brackets.Methods: A total of 32 orthodontic patients scheduled for fixed orthodontic treatment were selected for this prospective study.Patients were divided into randomly two groups brushing with tooth brusher type as follow SBTB and MBTB. The bondedbracket plaque index (PI), and pocket depth values (PDV) were evaluated 1 week after bracket placement (T1), 2 weeks afterbracket placement (T2); and 3 weeks after bracket placement (T3). The Friedman and Mann Whitney U tests were used toanalyze the data based on the Bonferroni test.Results: There was no statistically significant difference between the groups regarding PI and PDV values (p > 0.05). In theMBTB group, PDV values revealed statistically significant changes between T2 and T3 (p < 0.05). Moreover, pain scores showedno significant difference between the toothbrush groups (p = 0.540).Conclusion: There were no differences in the periodontal parameters between the soft bristles toothbrushes and oft mediumbristles toothbrushes in orthodontic patients with self-ligating brackets.

Özet

Amaç: Bu çalışmanın amacı yumuşak kıl formasyonuna sahip (SBTB) diş fırçası ile orta sertlikte kıl formasyonuna sahip (MBTB) diş fırçası tiplerinin kapaklı braketler ile tedavi edilen ortodonti hastalarında klinik periodontal parametreleri kaydedilerek plak kaldırma etkilerinin değerlendirilmesidir. Gereç ve Yöntem: Bu prospektif çalışma için sabit ortodontik tedavi gören 32 ortodonti hastası seçilmiştir. Hastalar randomize olarak kullandıkları diş fırçası tipine göre SBTB ve MBTB olarak iki gruba ayrılmıştır. Plak indeksi (PI) ve sondalama cep derinliği (PPDV) braketler yerleştirildikten 1 hafta sonra (T1), 2 hafta sonra (T2) ve 3 hafta sonra (T3) olmak üzere değerlendirilmiştir. Friedman ve Mann Whitney U testleri ile Bonferroni düzeltmesi kullanılarak veriler analiz edilmiştir. Bulgular: PI ve PPDV yönünden değerlendirildiğinde istatistiksel olarak anlamlı bir farklılık gözlenmemiştir (P> 0.05). MBTB grubunda, PDV değerleri T2 ve T3 tedavi zamanları arasında istatistiksel olarak anlamlı değişiklik göstermiştir (P

🔖

Cite This Article

YAVUZ, M. C., ALTUN, M., BÜYÜK, S. K., TÜRKER, G. (2022). EVAULATION OF EFFECTS OF DIFFERENT TOOTHBRUSH TYPES ON PERIODONTAL STATUS IN ORTHODONTIC PATIENTS. Atatürk Üniversitesi Diş Hekimliği Fakültesi Dergisi, Cilt: 31 - Sayı: 3, 433–438. https://ajindex.com/articles/451616

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (14)

  1. Ciancio D, Cunat J, Mather M, Harvey D. A comparison of plaque accumulation in bonded versus banded teeth. J Dent Res 1985;64:325
  2. Türkkahraman H, Sayin M, Bozkurt FY, Yetkin Z, Kaya S, Önal S. Archwire ligation techniques, microbial colonization, and periodontal status in orthodontically treated patients. Angle Orthod 2005;75: 231–6
  3. Feil PH, Grauer JS, Gadbury-Amyot CC, Kula K, McCunniff MD. Intentional use of the Hawthorne effect to improve oral hygiene compliance in orthodontic patients. J Dent Educ 2002;66: 1129– 35
  4. Ristic M, Svabic MV, Sasic M, Zelic O. Clinical and microbiological effects of fixed orthodontic appliances on periodontal tissues in adolescents. Orthod Craniofac Res 2007;10: 187–95
  5. Bardal PAP, Olympio KPK, Bastos JRDM, Henriques JFC, Buzalaf MAR. Education and motivation in oral health: preventing disease and promoting health in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment. Dent Press J Orthod 2011; 16: 95–102
  6. Chang HS, Walsh LJ, Freer TJ. The effect of orthodontic treatment on salivary flow, pH, buffer capacity, and levels of mutans streptococci and lactobacilli. Aust Orthod J 1999;15: 229–34
  7. Zachrisson BU. Cause and prevention of injuries to teeth and supporting structures during orthodontic treatment. Am J Orthod 1976;69: 285–300
  8. Machen DE. Legal aspects of orthodontic practice: risk management concepts. Periodontal evaluation and updates: don’t abdicate your duty to diagnose and supervise. Am J l Orthod Dentofac Orthop 1990;98: 84–5
  9. Kloehn JS, Pfeifer JS. The effect of orthodontic treatment on the periodontium. Angle Orthod 1974;44: 127–34
  10. Slot DE, Wiggelinkhuizen L, Rosema NAM, Van der Weijden GA. The efficacy of manual toothbrushes following a brushing exercise: a systematic review. Int J Dent Hygi 2012;10: 187–97
  11. Schmickler J, Wurbs S, Wurbs S, Lange K, Rinke S, Hornecker E, Mausberg RF, Ziebolz D. Influence of the utilization time of different manual toothbrushes on oral hygiene assessed during a 6- month observation period: A randomized clinical trial. J Periodontol 2014;85: 1050–8
  12. Robinson PG, Deacon SA, Deery C, Heanue M, Walmsley AD, Worthington HV, Shaw WC. Manual versus powered toothbrushing for oral health. Cochrane Database System Review 2005;18: CD002281
  13. Vibhute A, Vandana KL. The effectiveness of manual versus powered toothbrushes for plaque removal and gingival health: a meta-analysis. J Ind Soc Periodontol 2012;16: 156–60
  14. Nalçaci R, Özat Y, Çokakoglu S, Türkkahra