このページは自動翻訳されたものであり、翻訳の正確性は保証されていません。を参照してください。 英語版 ソーステキスト用。

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

2018年3月20日 更新者: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.

調査の概要

詳細な説明

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.

研究の種類

介入

入学 (実際)

89

段階

  • 適用できない

参加基準

研究者は、適格基準と呼ばれる特定の説明に適合する人を探します。これらの基準のいくつかの例は、人の一般的な健康状態または以前の治療です。

適格基準

就学可能な年齢

21年~35年 (大人)

健康ボランティアの受け入れ

はい

受講資格のある性別

全て

説明

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

研究計画

このセクションでは、研究がどのように設計され、研究が何を測定しているかなど、研究計画の詳細を提供します。

研究はどのように設計されていますか?

デザインの詳細

  • 主な目的:処理
  • 割り当て:ランダム化
  • 介入モデル:クロスオーバー割り当て
  • マスキング:ダブル

武器と介入

参加者グループ / アーム
介入・治療
実験的:Plaque Disclosed with Air Flow (PDAF)
Plaque will be disclosed prior to polishing with the air flow system.
air polishing with prior plaque disclosing
他の名前:
  • EMS
実験的: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
他の名前:
  • Slow speed handpiece
実験的:Non Plaque Disclosed Air Flow (NPD-AF)
Air polishing system will be used to remove the plaque
air polishing with no prior plaque disclosing
他の名前:
  • EMS
プラセボコンパレーター:Non Plaque Disclosed Rubber Cup (NPD-RC)
Rubber Cup polishing to remove plaque.
rubber cup polishing with no prior plaque disclosing
他の名前:
  • Slow speed handpiece

この研究は何を測定していますか?

主要な結果の測定

結果測定
メジャーの説明
時間枠
post treatment plaque score
時間枠: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

二次結果の測定

結果測定
メジャーの説明
時間枠
Treatment duration
時間枠:1 day
Time taken to complete the polishing by the air flow system or rubber cup polishing
1 day

協力者と研究者

ここでは、この調査に関係する人々や組織を見つけることができます。

捜査官

  • 主任研究者:Jia Hui Fu、National University Health System, Singapore

研究記録日

これらの日付は、ClinicalTrials.gov への研究記録と要約結果の提出の進捗状況を追跡します。研究記録と報告された結果は、国立医学図書館 (NLM) によって審査され、公開 Web サイトに掲載される前に、特定の品質管理基準を満たしていることが確認されます。

主要日程の研究

研究開始 (実際)

2016年12月8日

一次修了 (実際)

2017年9月30日

研究の完了 (実際)

2017年12月14日

試験登録日

最初に提出

2018年3月7日

QC基準を満たした最初の提出物

2018年3月13日

最初の投稿 (実際)

2018年3月20日

学習記録の更新

投稿された最後の更新 (実際)

2018年3月21日

QC基準を満たした最後の更新が送信されました

2018年3月20日

最終確認日

2018年3月1日

詳しくは

本研究に関する用語

個々の参加者データ (IPD) の計画

個々の参加者データ (IPD) を共有する予定はありますか?

いいえ

医薬品およびデバイス情報、研究文書

米国FDA規制医薬品の研究

いいえ

米国FDA規制機器製品の研究

いいえ

この情報は、Web サイト clinicaltrials.gov から変更なしで直接取得したものです。研究の詳細を変更、削除、または更新するリクエストがある場合は、register@clinicaltrials.gov。 までご連絡ください。 clinicaltrials.gov に変更が加えられるとすぐに、ウェブサイトでも自動的に更新されます。

購読する