Patients' opinion on the use of 2 generations of power-driven water flossers and their impact on gingival inflammation

6Citations
Citations of this article
13Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Objectives: To assess patients' opinion on the use of 2 generations of power-driven water flossers and their impact on gingival inflammation. Material & Methods: In the present prospective cohort study 24 periodontitis patients under regular supportive periodontal therapy used daily 2 generations of a power-driven water flosser (Sonicare AirFloss [SAF] and Sonicare AirFloss Ultra [SAFU]) for 12 weeks each. Patients were instructed to position the nozzle interproximally from the buccal aspect at each interproximal space. Patients' opinion was assessed by a questionnaire and interproximal bleeding on probing (BoP) was recorded. Results: Overall satisfaction with SAF/SAFU was rated high, by about 80% of the patients. About 66% of the patients preferred SAF/SAFU compared to their previous interdental cleaning device and indicated that they would continue using SAF/SAFU after the study; none of the patients reported any discomfort or pain. Compared to only tooth brushing, daily use of SAF/SAFU caused a significant reduction of interproximal BoP values, which were well maintained over 6 months; that is, BoP at interproximal buccal and oral sites (pooled), as well as at interproximal buccal and oral sites separately, was proportionately reduced by 29.1%, 41.2%, and 24.8%, respectively (pooled: p = 0.027; buccal sites: p = 0.030; oral sites: p = 0.030). Conclusion: Patients were very fond of the power-driven water flossers tested herein, and daily use of the devices for 6 months (i.e., each device was used for 3 months) resulted in a significant reduction of gingival inflammation interproximally.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Bertl, K., Edlund Johansson, P., & Stavropoulos, A. (2021). Patients’ opinion on the use of 2 generations of power-driven water flossers and their impact on gingival inflammation. Clinical and Experimental Dental Research, 7(6), 1089–1095. https://doi.org/10.1002/cre2.456

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free