Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32384897›Full record

ArticleBMC oral health2020

New experimental setup for the measurement of cleaning efficacy and force of interdental aids in 3D-reproduced interdental areas.

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

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC oral health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Christian GraetzClinic of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University of Kiel, Arnold-Heller-Str. 3, Haus B, 24105, Kiel, Germany. graetz@konspar.uni-kiel.de.ORCID 0000-0002-8316-0565
Johanna RabeClinic of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University of Kiel, Arnold-Heller-Str. 3, Haus B, 24105, Kiel, Germany.
Kristina SchoepkeClinic of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University of Kiel, Arnold-Heller-Str. 3, Haus B, 24105, Kiel, Germany.
Susanne SchorrClinic of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University of Kiel, Arnold-Heller-Str. 3, Haus B, 24105, Kiel, Germany.
Antje GeikenClinic of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University of Kiel, Arnold-Heller-Str. 3, Haus B, 24105, Kiel, Germany.
David ChristofzikClinic of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University of Kiel, Arnold-Heller-Str. 3, Haus B, 24105, Kiel, Germany.
Thomas RinderInstitute of Mechatronics, Computer Science and Electrical Engineering, Kiel University of Applied Sciences, Kiel, Germany.
Christof E DörferClinic of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University of Kiel, Arnold-Heller-Str. 3, Haus B, 24105, Kiel, Germany.
Sonja SälzerClinic of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University of Kiel, Arnold-Heller-Str. 3, Haus B, 24105, Kiel, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundInterdental rubber picks (IRP) have become a frequent and convenient alternative for interdental cleaning. However, only little evidence exists supporting the effectiveness of newer designs available on the market. Therefore, a new in vitro model was evaluated to measure the experimental cleaning efficacy (ECE), as well as the force needed for insertion and during the use of IRP, with high reproducibility.

methodsFive different sizes of commercially marketed IRP with elastomeric fingers (IRP-F) (GUM SOFT-PICKS® Advanced, Sunstar Deutschland GmbH, Schönau, Germany) or slats (IRP-S) (TePe EasyPick™, TePe D-A-CH GmbH, Hamburg, Germany) 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 different gap sizes (1.0 mm, 1.1 mm, 1.3 mm). The pre-/post brushing situations at interdental areas (standardized cleaning, computer aided ten cycles) were photographically recorded and quantified by digital image subtraction to calculate ECE [%]. Forces were registered with a load cell [N].

resultsIRP-F have to be inserted with significant higher forces of 3.2 ± 1.8 N compared to IRP-S (2.0 ± 1.6 N; p < 0.001) independent of the size and type of artificial interdental area. During cleaning process IRP-S showed significantly lower values for pushing/pulling (1.0 ± 0.8 N/0.5 ± 0.4 N) compared to IRP-F (1.6 ± 0.8 N/0.7 ± 0.3 N; p < 0.001) concomitant to significantly lower ECE (19.1 ± 9.8 vs. 21.7 ± 10.0%, p = 0.002). Highest ECE was measured with largest size of IRP-F/IRP-S independent the morphology of interdental area.

conclusionsNew interdental cleaning aids can be tested by the new experimental setup supported by 3D printing technology. Within the limitations of an in vitro study, IRP-F cleaned more effectively at higher forces compared to IRP-S.

Indexed as

Dental Devices, Home CareDental PlaqueGermanyHumansPhotography, DentalPressureReproducibility of ResultsToothbrushing3D printingCleaning efficacyIn vitro procedureMechanical plaque controlResistance to insertionRubber bristle interdental cleaner

Identifiers

PMID32384897
PMCPMC7206737

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.