In vitro comparison of cleaning efficacy and force of cylindric interdental brush versus an interdental rubber pick

Christian Graetz; Kristina Schoepke; Johanna Rabe; Susanne Schorr; Antje Geiken; David Christofzik; Thomas Rinder; Christof E Dörfer; Sonja Sälzer

doi:10.1186/s12903-021-01558-4

In vitro comparison of cleaning efficacy and force of cylindric interdental brush versus an interdental rubber pick

BMC Oral Health. 2021 Apr 14;21(1):194. doi: 10.1186/s12903-021-01558-4.

Authors

Christian Graetz¹, Kristina Schoepke², Johanna Rabe², Susanne Schorr², Antje Geiken², David Christofzik², Thomas Rinder³, Christof E Dörfer², Sonja Sälzer²

Affiliations

¹ Clinic of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University of Kiel, Arnold-Heller-Str. 3, Haus B, 24105, Kiel, Germany. graetz@konspar.uni-kiel.de.
² Clinic of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University of Kiel, Arnold-Heller-Str. 3, Haus B, 24105, Kiel, Germany.
³ Institute of Mechatronics, Computer Science and Electrical Engineering, Kiel University of Applied Sciences, Kiel, Germany.

Abstract

Background: Interdental brushes (IDB) are according to the actual evidence the first choice for cleaning interdental areas (IDR). Their size should be chosen individually according to the IDR morphology. However, interdental rubber picks (IRP) are appreciated better by the patients and are hence becoming more and more popular but the evidence regarding their efficacy is still limited. The aim of this in vitro study was to measure the experimental cleaning efficacy (ECE) and force (ECF) during the use of interdental brushes versus newer wireless types with rubber filaments (IRP), both fitted and non-fitted for different IDR.

Methods: The medium size of a conical IRP (regular, ISO 2) with elastomeric fingers versus four sizes (ISO 1, 2, 3, 4) of cylindric IDB with nylon filaments (all Sunstar Suisse SA, Etoy, Switzerland) 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 three different gap sizes (1.0 mm, 1.1 mm, 1.3 mm). The pre-/post brushing situations at IDR (standardized, computer aided ten cycles) were photographically recorded and quantified by digital image subtraction to calculate ECE [%]. ECF were registered with a load cell [N].

Results: Overall, a higher ECE was recorded for IDB compared to IRP (58.3 ± 14.9% versus 18.4 ± 10.1%; p < 0.001). ECE significantly depended on the fitting of the IDB. ECE was significant higher in isosceles triangle compared to concave and convex IDR for both IDB and IRP (p ≤ 0.001). ECF was lower for IDB (0.6 ± 0.4N) compared to IRP (0.8 ± 0.5N; p ≤ 0.001). ECE in relation to ECF increases with smaller IDB. For IRP highest values of ECF were found in the smallest IDR.

Conclusions: Within the limitations of an in vitro study, size fitted IDB cleaned more effectively at lower forces compared to conical IRP.

Keywords: Interdental brushes; Interdental cleaning efficacy; Mechanical plaque control; Oral hygiene.

Publication types

Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

Dental Devices, Home Care*
Dental Plaque*
Humans
Rubber
Switzerland
Toothbrushing

Substances

Rubber