Cette page a été traduite automatiquement et l'exactitude de la traduction n'est pas garantie. Veuillez vous référer au version anglaise pour un texte source.

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

20 mars 2018 mis à jour par: 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.

Aperçu de l'étude

Description détaillée

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.

Type d'étude

Interventionnel

Inscription (Réel)

89

Phase

  • N'est pas applicable

Critères de participation

Les chercheurs recherchent des personnes qui correspondent à une certaine description, appelée critères d'éligibilité. Certains exemples de ces critères sont l'état de santé général d'une personne ou des traitements antérieurs.

Critère d'éligibilité

Âges éligibles pour étudier

21 ans à 35 ans (Adulte)

Accepte les volontaires sains

Oui

Sexes éligibles pour l'étude

Tout

La description

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 d'étude

Cette section fournit des détails sur le plan d'étude, y compris la façon dont l'étude est conçue et ce que l'étude mesure.

Comment l'étude est-elle conçue ?

Détails de conception

  • Objectif principal: Traitement
  • Répartition: Randomisé
  • Modèle interventionnel: Affectation croisée
  • Masquage: Double

Armes et Interventions

Groupe de participants / Bras
Intervention / Traitement
Expérimental: Plaque Disclosed with Air Flow (PDAF)
Plaque will be disclosed prior to polishing with the air flow system.
air polishing with prior plaque disclosing
Autres noms:
  • SME
Expérimental: 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
Autres noms:
  • Slow speed handpiece
Expérimental: Non Plaque Disclosed Air Flow (NPD-AF)
Air polishing system will be used to remove the plaque
air polishing with no prior plaque disclosing
Autres noms:
  • SME
Comparateur placebo: Non Plaque Disclosed Rubber Cup (NPD-RC)
Rubber Cup polishing to remove plaque.
rubber cup polishing with no prior plaque disclosing
Autres noms:
  • Slow speed handpiece

Que mesure l'étude ?

Principaux critères de jugement

Mesure des résultats
Description de la mesure
Délai
post treatment plaque score
Délai: 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

Mesures de résultats secondaires

Mesure des résultats
Description de la mesure
Délai
Treatment duration
Délai: 1 day
Time taken to complete the polishing by the air flow system or rubber cup polishing
1 day

Collaborateurs et enquêteurs

C'est ici que vous trouverez les personnes et les organisations impliquées dans cette étude.

Les enquêteurs

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

Dates d'enregistrement des études

Ces dates suivent la progression des dossiers d'étude et des soumissions de résultats sommaires à ClinicalTrials.gov. Les dossiers d'étude et les résultats rapportés sont examinés par la Bibliothèque nationale de médecine (NLM) pour s'assurer qu'ils répondent à des normes de contrôle de qualité spécifiques avant d'être publiés sur le site Web public.

Dates principales de l'étude

Début de l'étude (Réel)

8 décembre 2016

Achèvement primaire (Réel)

30 septembre 2017

Achèvement de l'étude (Réel)

14 décembre 2017

Dates d'inscription aux études

Première soumission

7 mars 2018

Première soumission répondant aux critères de contrôle qualité

13 mars 2018

Première publication (Réel)

20 mars 2018

Mises à jour des dossiers d'étude

Dernière mise à jour publiée (Réel)

21 mars 2018

Dernière mise à jour soumise répondant aux critères de contrôle qualité

20 mars 2018

Dernière vérification

1 mars 2018

Plus d'information

Termes liés à cette étude

Plan pour les données individuelles des participants (IPD)

Prévoyez-vous de partager les données individuelles des participants (DPI) ?

NON

Informations sur les médicaments et les dispositifs, documents d'étude

Étudie un produit pharmaceutique réglementé par la FDA américaine

Non

Étudie un produit d'appareil réglementé par la FDA américaine

Non

Ces informations ont été extraites directement du site Web clinicaltrials.gov sans aucune modification. Si vous avez des demandes de modification, de suppression ou de mise à jour des détails de votre étude, veuillez contacter register@clinicaltrials.gov. Dès qu'un changement est mis en œuvre sur clinicaltrials.gov, il sera également mis à jour automatiquement sur notre site Web .

S'abonner