Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36320016›Full record

ArticleBMC oral health2022

The influence of artificial saliva on the cleaning force of interdental rubber picks: an in-vitro comparison.

Christian Graetz, Ann-Kristin Härdter, Susanne Schorr, Miriam Cyris, Antje Geiken, Thomas Rinder, Christof E Dörfer, Sonja Sälzer

Open access · goldAbstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC oral health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 39% of its field
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Christian Graetz *Clinic of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University of Kiel, Arnold-Heller-Str. 3, Haus B, 24105, Kiel, Germany. graetz@konspar.uni-kiel.de.
Ann-Kristin Härdter *Clinic 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.
Miriam CyrisClinic 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.
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.
Kiel University · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe familiar aids for interdental cleaning such as dental floss or interdental brushes (IDB) are often associated with difficult handling or an increased potential for trauma. Interdental picks (IRP), which have no metal core and silicone flaps instead of nylon brushes, offer the alternative. However, in-vitro studies found a lower cleaning effectiveness combined with higher forces for cleaning compared with conventional IDBs. The aim of this in-vitro study was to measure the experimental cleaning forces (ECF) using IRP with versus without an artificial saliva (AS; GUM Hydral, Sunstar Suisse SA, Etoy, Switzerland).

methodsThe test set-up was developed to investigate the cleaning of 3D-printed interdental area (IDR) mimicking human teeth (Form 2, Formlabs Sommerville, MA, USA) under standardized conditions. Three different morphologies (isosceles triangle, convex, concave) and three different sizes (1.0 mm,1.1 mm,1.3 mm) were used. Two different IRPs (GUM Soft-picks Advanced: SPA versus GUM Soft-picks Advanced Plus: SPA+, Sunstar Suisse SA, Etoy, Switzerland) in three sizes (small, regular, large), were used with versus without AS. ECF during ten cleaning cycles were recorded by a load cell [N].

resultsUsing AS leaded to significant lower values for ECF than without (1.04 ± 0.66 N versus 1.97 ± 1.01 N, p < 0.001). In general, a lower ECF was recorded for convex IDR compared to isosceles triangle and concave morphologies (p < 0.001) as well as for gap sizes of 1.3 mm compared to the smaller sizes (p < 0.001). For SPA+ we found significantly higher force values than for SPA (1.67 ± 0.93 N versus 1.31 ± 0.97 N, p < 0.001) independent of the use of AS.

conclusionWithin the study´s in-vitro limitations, we found AS reduced ECF of IRPs by half and allowed using larger diameters interdentally, which could be associated with (1) a higher cleaning effectiveness and (2) a higher acceptance e.g. of patients with dry mouth. This has to be confirmed by further clinical investigations.

Indexed as

Dental Devices, Home CareDental PlaqueBenzalkonium CompoundsHumansRubberSaliva, ArtificialToothbrushingBenzalkonium CompoundsRubberSaliva, ArtificialInterdental brushesInterdental cleaning forceMechanical plaque controlOral hygiene

Identifiers

PMID36320016
PMCPMC9624009
OpenAlexW4307834144

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.