4.4 Article

The efficacy of a counter-rotational powered toothbrush in the maintenance of endosseous dental implants

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION
Volume 131, Issue 1, Pages 101-107

Publisher

AMER DENTAL ASSN
DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2000.0028

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background. Although most patients with implants have lost their natural teeth because of poor oral hygiene, limited data exist to guide practitioners in their recommendations of home-care regimens for their patients' endosseous dental implants and maintenance of peri-implant soft-tissue health. The authors conducted a study to compare the home-care effectiveness of a counter-rotational powered toothbrush with that of conventional home-care regimens. Methods. Before starting the six-year study, the authors trained 85 clinical investigators at 32 dental research centers across the United States in gathering periodontal data. Data for 2,966 implants were entered into a centralized database. Outcomes were derived from 24-month observations of a subset of the implants studied. Results. Repeated-measures analysis of the toothbrushing methods used on 2,966 implants showed that the counter-rotational powered toothbrush removed plaque significantly better than manual methods (P < .0001 Wald statistic) from all implant surfaces and at all recall intervals up to 24 months. Similar results were demonstrated for the gingival index. Conclusions. The counter-rotational powered brush appears to be well-suited for home-care regimens aimed at maintaining optimal peri-implant soft-tissue health in patients with dental implants. Clinical Implications. The importance of maintaining the health of the peri-implant tissues is well-recognized by the dental profession. The counter-rotational powered toothbrush is an effective tool in meeting the oral hygiene challenges associated with implant prosthesis maintenance.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available