Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.4047/jkap.2021.59.3.291

Comparison of the effect of removing artificial dental plaque depending on various interdental cleaning products on the interdental surface of zirconia crowns  

Kim, Hyun-Wook (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Medicine, Ewha Womans University)
Song, Ha-Kyung (The Graduate School of Clinical Dentistry, Ewha Womans University)
Park, Eun-Jin (Department of Prosthodontics, School of Medicine, Ewha Womans University)
Publication Information
The Journal of Korean Academy of Prosthodontics / v.59, no.3, 2021 , pp. 291-298 More about this Journal
Abstract
Purpose. The purpose of this study is to compare five interdental cleansing products' effectiveness on removing artificial dental plaque on the interdental space of zirconia crowns. Materials and methods. A model with abutments on the right mandibular second premolar and first molar were prepared. 10 zirconia crowns for each abutment were fabricated. After applying artificial dental plaque between the zirconia crowns, a single clinician attempted to remove the plaque with five products: interdental toothbrush, end-tuft toothbrush, dental floss, Easypick, Water pik. They were conducted 10 times per group. The aspect and area of removed surfaces were analyzed using images taken with a digital camera. One factor analysis of variance was performed as a statistical analysis, and a post-hoc test was performed using the Scheffé method (P < .05). Results. There were differences in the area and the pattern according to the characteristics of the products. The largest area, including the marginal portion, was removed in the dental floss group. Interdental toothbrush group was the most effective in removing the dental plaque at the marginal portion. Easypick was less effective than the interdental toothbrush. The end-tuft toothbrush showed better results than other products in cleansing mesiobuccal and distobuccal area, but could not cleanse the area directly below the contact point. In Water pik group, artificial dental plaque was scarcely removed. The removal rate of artificial dental plaque was in the order of floss (69.47%), end-tuft toothbrush (49.36%), interdental toothbrush (44.20%), Easy pick (13.04%), and Water pik (0.59%). Conclusion. Dental floss showed the highest removal rate in the interdental space restored with zirconia crowns, while interdental toothbrush was the most effective in removing the dental plaque at the marginal portion.
Keywords
Crowns; Dental devices for home care; Dental plaque; Zirconium oxide;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Lebon N, Tapie L, Duret F, Attal JP. Understanding dental CAD/CAM for restorations-dental milling machines from a mechanical engineering viewpoint. Part B: labside milling machines. Int J Comput Dent 2016;19:115-34.
2 Carrilho Baltazar Vaz IM, Pimentel Coelho Lino Carracho JF. Marginal fit of zirconia copings fabricated after conventional impression making and digital scanning: An in vitro study. J Prosthet Dent 2020;124:223.
3 Jacobs MS, Windeler AS. An investigation of dental luting cement solubility as a function of the marginal gap. J Prosthet Dent 1991;65:436-42.   DOI
4 Yost KG, Mallatt ME, Liebman J. Interproximal gingivitis and plaque reduction by four interdental products. J Clin Dent 2006;17:79-83.
5 Sorensen SE, Larsen IB, Jorgensen KD. Gingival and alveolar bone reaction to marginal fit of subgingival crown margins. Scand J Dent Res 1986;94:109-14.
6 Meirowitz A, Bitterman Y, Levy S, Mijiritsky E, Dolev, E. An in vitro evaluation of marginal fit zirconia crowns fabricated by a CAD-CAM dental laboratory and a milling center. BMC Oral Health 2019;19: 1-6.   DOI
7 Souza RO, Ozcan M, Pavanelli CA, Buso L, Lombardo GH, Michida SM, Mesquita AM, Bottino MA. Marginal and internal discrepancies related to margin design of ceramic crowns fabricated by a CAD/CAM system. J Prosthodont 2012;21:94-100.   DOI
8 Nawafleh NA, Mack F, Evans J, Mackay J, Hatamleh MM. Accuracy and reliability of methods to measure marginal adaptation of crowns and FDPs: a literature review. J Prosthodont 2013;22:419-28.   DOI
9 Sorensen JA. A rationale for comparison of plaque-retaining properties of crown systems. J Prosthet Dent 1989;62:264-9.   DOI
10 Lyle DM, Goyal CR, Qaqish JG, Schuller R. Comparison of water flosser and interdental brush on plaque removal: A single-use pilot study. J Clin Dent 2016;27:23-6.
11 Sarner B, Birkhed D, Andersson P, Lingstrom P. Recommendations by dental staff and use of toothpicks, dental floss and interdental brushes for approximal cleaning in an adult Swedish population. Oral Health Prev Dent 2010;8:185-94.
12 Sharma NC, Lyle DM, Qaqish JG, Schuller R. Comparison of two power interdental cleaning devices on the reduction of gingivitis. J Clin Dent 2012;23:22-6.   DOI
13 Jeong MJ, Cho HA, Kim SY, Kang KR, Lee EB, Lee YJ, Choi JH, Kil KS, Lee MH, Jeong SJ, Lim DS. Effect of ultra-soft and soft toothbrushes on the removal of plaque and tooth abrasion. J Dent Hyg Sci 2018;13: 164-71.
14 McLean JW, von Fraunhofer JA. The estimation of cement film thickness by an in vivo technique. Br Dent J 1971;131:107-11.   DOI
15 Covacci V, Bruzzese N, Maccauro G, Andreassi C, Ricci GA, Piconi C, Marmo E, Burger W, Cittadini A. In vitro evaluation of the mutagenic and carcinogenic power of high purity zirconia ceramic. Biomaterials 1999;20:371-6.   DOI
16 Park CS, Kim YI, Jang SH. A study on the status of recognition, understanding of the use and practical application of oral hygiene devices in dental clinics patients. J Korean Soc Dent Hyg 2009;9:685-98.
17 Suarez MJ, Lozano JF, Paz Salido M, Martinez F. Three-year clinical evaluation of In-Ceram Zirconia posterior FPDs. Int J Prosthodont 2004;17:35-8.
18 Koutayas SO, Vagkopoulou T, Pelekanos S, Koidis P, Strub JR. Zirconia in dentistry: part 2. Evidence-based clinical breakthrough. Eur J Esthet Dent 2009;4:348-80.
19 Hamza TA, Sherif RM. In vitro evaluation of marginal discrepancy of monolithic zirconia restorations fabricated with different CAD-CAM systems. J Prosthet Dent 2017;117:762-6.   DOI
20 Kang BW, Kim KS. Preventive dentistry. 4th ed. Paju; Koonja Pubulishing Inc.; 2012. p. 118-9.
21 Sharma NC, Lyle DM, Qaqish JG, Schuller R. Comparison of two power interdental cleaning devices on plaque removal. J Clin Dent 2012;23:17-21.
22 Piconi C, Maccauro G. Zirconia as a ceramic biomaterial. Biomaterials 1999;20:1-25.   DOI
23 Worthington HV, MacDonald L, Poklepovic Pericic T, Sambunjak D, Johnson TM, Imai P, Clarkson JE. Home use of interdental cleaning devices, in addition to toothbrushing, for preventing and controlling periodontal diseases and dental caries. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2019;4:CD012018.
24 Hisanaga R, Shinya A, Sato T, Nomoto S, Yotsuya M. Plaque-removing effects of interdental instruments in molar region. Bull Tokyo Dent Coll 2020;61:21-6.   DOI
25 Vagkopoulou T, Koutayas SO, Koidis P, Strub JR. Zirconia in dentistry: Part 1. Discovering the nature of an upcoming bioceramic. Eur J Esthet Dent 2009;4: 130-51.