Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

In vitro cleaning efficacy and resistance to insertion test of interdental brushes

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Oral Investigations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the resistance to insertion forces and cleaning efficacy values of triangular interdental brushes (TIB) and conventional round interdental brushes (RIB). Extracted human teeth were fixed in a socket and matched to pairs simulating interdental spaces. Before and after standardized cleaning of the proximal surfaces, the pre- and postbrushing situations were registered with a digital camera. The cleaning efficacy was quantified by digital image subtraction. The forces necessary for insertion were measured with a load cell. The ratio between the relative cleaning efficacy and the forces necessary for insertion was calculated. The results of our study revealed that the relative cleaning efficacies of round and TIB were equal. There were no statistically significant differences. TIB showed significantly lower resistance to insertion values. Consequently, at identical resistance to insertion the TIB cleaned more effectively compared with the RIB, which means that the same effectiveness was reached by significantly lower forces at insertion. TIB showed a more favorable ratio between relative cleaning efficacy and resistance to insertion than RIB.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Elmex® triangular interdental brush, GABA International AG, Therwil/Basel, Switzerland

  2. Curaden International AG, Kriens, Switzerland

  3. Blue Marker, YETI Dentalprodukte GmbH, D-78234 Engen

  4. Paint Shop Pro 5.0

  5. Scion Image

  6. Zwicki, Zwick GmbH und CoKG, D-Ulm

References

  1. Abrams H, Kopczyk RA (1983) Gingival sequela from a retained piece of dental floss. J Am Dent Assoc 106:57–58 (Jan)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Axelsson P (1998) Needs related plaque control measures based on risk prediction. Paper presented at the European workshop on mechanical plaque control, Castle of Münchenwiler, Berne, Switzerland

  3. Bergenholtz A, Olsson A (1984) Efficacy of plaque-removal using interdental brushes and waxed dental floss. Scand J Dent Res 92:198–203

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Christou V, Timmerman MF, Van der Velden U, Van der Weijden FA (1998) Comparison of different approaches of interdental oral hygiene: interdental brushes versus dental floss. J Periodontol 69:759–764

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Crain N, Klein BL, Mohan P (2000) Dental floss ingestion requiring endoscopic retrieval. Pediatr Emerg Care 16:339–340 (Oct)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Dawson-Saunders B, Trapp RG (1994) Basic & clinical biostatistics, 2nd edn. Appleton & Lange, Norfolk

    Google Scholar 

  7. Dörfer CE (1998) Modern aspects of interdental hygiene. Part II. Zahnärztl Mitt 88:376–385

    Google Scholar 

  8. Dörfer CE (1999) Cleaning efficacy of an interdental cleaning aid in comparison with interdental floss. Results of an in-vitro study. Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 54:494–498

    Google Scholar 

  9. Dörfer CE (2002) Aids for an effective interdental hygiene—a difficult choice. ZMK 18:376–382

    Google Scholar 

  10. Dörfer CE, Spiry S, Staehle HJ (1995) Force effect on the proximal tooth surfaces by interdental brushes. Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 50:904–908

    Google Scholar 

  11. Dörfer CE, Spiry S, Staehle HJ (1997) Cleaning efficacy of interdental brushes in-vitro. Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 52:427–430

    Google Scholar 

  12. Dörfer CE, Staehle HJ (1999) Interdental hygiene. GPZ-Report 2:25–29

    Google Scholar 

  13. Dörfer CE, Weidtmann K (1998) Cleaning possibilities of tunneled teeth—an experimental investigation. Dtsch Zahnärztl Z 53:349–353

    Google Scholar 

  14. Freeman S, Stephens R (1999) Cheilitis: analysis of 75 cases referred to a contact dermatitis clinic. Am J Contact Dermat 10:198–200 (Dec)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Goldman L (1979) Dental floss as a factor in the development of perleche. Arch Dermatol 115:108 (Jan)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Hallmon WW, Waldrop TC, Houston GD, Hawkins BF (1986) Flossing clefts. Clinical and histologic observations. J Periodontol 57:501–504 (Aug)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Kiger RD, Nylund K, Feller RP (1991) A comparison of proximal plaque removal using floss and interdental brushes. J Clin Periodontol 18:681–684

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Lakind LE (1975) Recurrent dental floss laceration. Report of case. Temple Dent Rev 46:18–19 (Winter)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Rawlinson A (1987) Case report. Labial cervical abrasion caused by misuse of dental floss. Dent Health (London) 26:3–4 (Jun–Jul)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Schmage P, Platzer U, Nergiz I (1999) Comparison between manual and mechanical methods of interproximal hygiene. Quintessence Int 30:535–539 (Aug)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Wolff D, Haus D, Jörß D, Pioch T, Dörfer CE (2003) Cleaning efficacy of different interdental brushes. J Clin Periodontol 30:52 (abstract #196)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Wolff D, Joerss D, Dörfer CE (2006) In-vitro cleaning efficacy of interdental brushes with different stiffness and different diameter. Oral Health and Preventive Dentistry (in press). http://www.manuscriptmanager.com/master/pre_print_article_page.php?&manuscriptid=243&journal=ohpd&PHPSESSID=676f9312a5694d21c0ca62b98d56bd88

Download references

Acknowledgement

This study was supported by GABA International AG, Switzerland.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Conservative Dentistry, University of Heidelberg Medical School, Im Neuenheimer Feld 400, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany

    Diana Wolff, Daniela Joerss, Paul Rau & C. E. Dörfer

Authors
  1. Diana Wolff
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniela Joerss
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Paul Rau
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. C. E. Dörfer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Diana Wolff.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wolff, D., Joerss, D., Rau, P. et al. In vitro cleaning efficacy and resistance to insertion test of interdental brushes. Clin Oral Invest 10, 297–304 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-006-0068-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00784-006-0068-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation