Esta página se tradujo automáticamente y no se garantiza la precisión de la traducción. por favor refiérase a versión inglesa para un texto fuente.

A Comparison of the Outcomes of Two Existing Routine Clinical Therapies for Dental Prophylaxis

20 de marzo de 2018 actualizado por: Jia Hui Fu, National University Health System, Singapore

Background: In most practices, conventional in-office prophylaxis starts immediately with scaling and polishing. Therefore, this project was designed to challenge tradition by comparing plaque removal efficacy of rubber cup and air polishing in two scenarios, one where plaque was disclosed prior to treatment and the other where plaque was not disclosed.

Methods: In this randomized, single blind, split-mouth design clinical trial, healthy, non-smoking participants with poor oral hygiene were recruited. Quadrants in each participant were randomly assigned to 4 treatment groups, which were plaque disclosure with rubber cup polishing, no plaque disclosure with rubber cup polishing, plaque disclosure with air polishing, and no plaque disclosure with air polishing. Examiners were calibrated and masked to the treatment rendered in each quadrant. Post treatment satisfaction questionnaires for both participants and operators were completed. Plaque scores for each quadrant and treatment time were the recorded outcome measures.

Descripción general del estudio

Descripción detallada

According to the literature search, there was no preceding study, which compared the efficacy of conventional routine of rubber cup or air powder polishing with or without prior plaque disclosure. Therefore, this study was designed to test the hypotheses that (1) disclosing plaque prior to dental polishing was more effective than dental polishing alone, (2) air polishing was more efficient than rubber cup polishing, and (3) operators and patients prefer air polishing to rubber cup polishing.

In order to evaluate the hypotheses raised, a single blind, randomised controlled clinical trial with a split mouth design was conducted. The control groups had conventional dental prophylaxis regime of mechanical plaque removal with either fine air powder polishing or rubber cup polishing using fine grit prophylaxis paste. The test groups had plaque disclosure prior to mechanical plaque removal as described for the control groups. In total, there were 4 study groups: (1) rubber cup polishing without prior plaque disclosure (RC-NPD) (negative control), (2) rubber cup polishing with prior plaque disclosure (RC-PD) (positive control), (3) air polishing without prior plaque disclosure (AF-NPD) (negative test), and (4) air polishing with prior plaque disclosure (AF-PD) (positive test).

The quadrant that was assigned to receive RC-NPD was treated first followed by the quadrant assigned to receive AF-NPD. Plaque was disclosed in all 4 quadrants and the assigned calibrated examiner proceeded to chart the FMPS. Next, the quadrant assigned to receive RC-PD was treated, followed by the quadrant assigned to receive AF-PD; subsequently FMPS was charted. Any aberrant findings in occlusion, tooth alignment, extra/missing teeth were also noted. A digital stopwatch was used to time the treatment duration for each quadrant. Both participant and clinician completed a post prophylaxis satisfaction questionnaire. The treatment workflow used in this study was illustrated in figure 1. The primary outcome measure was the post treatment FMPS and the secondary outcomes measures were the treatment duration.

Descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviations) was used to summarize the plaque score and treatment duration for each study group. Two-way repeated measure ANOVA test was employed to examine the study hypotheses that air polishing was more effective in removing plaque compared to rubber cup polishing and disclosing plaque prior to prophylaxis increased the thoroughness of the prophylaxis. Two-way repeated measure ANOVA test was also performed to study the treatment duration between the 2 polishing methods and treatment regimens of with or without plaque disclosure prior to prophylaxis. In a secondary analysis, interactions were tested to study if there were differences among the 4 operators. Paired T-test and Pearson's Chi-Square tests were used to study the participant's and operator's preference for each treatment modality based on various yardsticks and overall, respectively. The level of significance was set at p-value<0.05. All statistical analyses were carried out using a statistical package.

Tipo de estudio

Intervencionista

Inscripción (Actual)

89

Fase

  • No aplica

Criterios de participación

Los investigadores buscan personas que se ajusten a una determinada descripción, denominada criterio de elegibilidad. Algunos ejemplos de estos criterios son el estado de salud general de una persona o tratamientos previos.

Criterio de elegibilidad

Edades elegibles para estudiar

21 años a 35 años (Adulto)

Acepta Voluntarios Saludables

Sí

Géneros elegibles para el estudio

Todos

Descripción

Inclusion Criteria:

  • 1) Age 21 to 35 years old
  • 2) Healthy
  • 3) Non-smoker
  • 4) With gingivitis and poor oral hygiene (plaque score of at least 50%)
  • 5) English literate

Exclusion Criteria:

  • 1) Smoker
  • 2) Pregnant or lactating females
  • 3) Unable to speak/read/write/communicate in English
  • 4) With dentures or bridges or braces

Plan de estudios

Esta sección proporciona detalles del plan de estudio, incluido cómo está diseñado el estudio y qué mide el estudio.

¿Cómo está diseñado el estudio?

Detalles de diseño

  • Propósito principal: Tratamiento
  • Asignación: Aleatorizado
  • Modelo Intervencionista: Asignación cruzada
  • Enmascaramiento: Doble

Armas e Intervenciones

Grupo de participantes/brazo
Intervención / Tratamiento
Experimental: Plaque Disclosed with Air Flow (PDAF)
Plaque will be disclosed prior to polishing with the air flow system.
air polishing with prior plaque disclosing
Otros nombres:
  • Ccsme
Experimental: Plaque Disclosed with Rubber Cup (PD-RC)
Plaque will be disclosed prior to polishing with the rubber cup and fine grit prophylaxis paste.
rubber cup polishing with prior plaque disclosing
Otros nombres:
  • Slow speed handpiece
Experimental: Non Plaque Disclosed Air Flow (NPD-AF)
Air polishing system will be used to remove the plaque
air polishing with no prior plaque disclosing
Otros nombres:
  • Ccsme
Comparador de placebos: Non Plaque Disclosed Rubber Cup (NPD-RC)
Rubber Cup polishing to remove plaque.
rubber cup polishing with no prior plaque disclosing
Otros nombres:
  • Slow speed handpiece

¿Qué mide el estudio?

Medidas de resultado primarias

Medida de resultado
Medida Descripción
Periodo de tiempo
post treatment plaque score
Periodo de tiempo: 1 day

plaque score based on Loe and Silness 1963. Minimum score is 0. Maximum score is 1. It is a categorical scale of 0 or 1 and is not a continuous scale.

0 is a good outcome and 1 is a poor outcome. Each side of the tooth will be recorded as either a 0 or a 1. It will be added up and averaged out by the number of tooth sides multiple by 100% to get a percentage total score. The higher the percentage, the worser the outcome.

1 day

Medidas de resultado secundarias

Medida de resultado
Medida Descripción
Periodo de tiempo
Treatment duration
Periodo de tiempo: 1 day
Time taken to complete the polishing by the air flow system or rubber cup polishing
1 day

Colaboradores e Investigadores

Aquí es donde encontrará personas y organizaciones involucradas en este estudio.

Investigadores

  • Investigador principal: Jia Hui Fu, National University Health System, Singapore

Fechas de registro del estudio

Estas fechas rastrean el progreso del registro del estudio y los envíos de resultados resumidos a ClinicalTrials.gov. Los registros del estudio y los resultados informados son revisados ​​por la Biblioteca Nacional de Medicina (NLM) para asegurarse de que cumplan con los estándares de control de calidad específicos antes de publicarlos en el sitio web público.

Fechas importantes del estudio

Inicio del estudio (Actual)

8 de diciembre de 2016

Finalización primaria (Actual)

30 de septiembre de 2017

Finalización del estudio (Actual)

14 de diciembre de 2017

Fechas de registro del estudio

Enviado por primera vez

7 de marzo de 2018

Primero enviado que cumplió con los criterios de control de calidad

13 de marzo de 2018

Publicado por primera vez (Actual)

20 de marzo de 2018

Actualizaciones de registros de estudio

Última actualización publicada (Actual)

21 de marzo de 2018

Última actualización enviada que cumplió con los criterios de control de calidad

20 de marzo de 2018

Última verificación

1 de marzo de 2018

Más información

Términos relacionados con este estudio

Plan de datos de participantes individuales (IPD)

¿Planea compartir datos de participantes individuales (IPD)?

NO

Información sobre medicamentos y dispositivos, documentos del estudio

Estudia un producto farmacéutico regulado por la FDA de EE. UU.

No

Estudia un producto de dispositivo regulado por la FDA de EE. UU.

No

Esta información se obtuvo directamente del sitio web clinicaltrials.gov sin cambios. Si tiene alguna solicitud para cambiar, eliminar o actualizar los detalles de su estudio, comuníquese con register@clinicaltrials.gov. Tan pronto como se implemente un cambio en clinicaltrials.gov, también se actualizará automáticamente en nuestro sitio web. .

Suscribir