이 페이지는 자동 번역되었으며 번역의 정확성을 보장하지 않습니다. 참조하십시오 영문판 원본 텍스트의 경우.

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

2018년 3월 20일 업데이트: 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.

연구 개요

상세 설명

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.

연구 유형

중재적

등록 (실제)

89

단계

  • 해당 없음

참여기준

연구원은 적격성 기준이라는 특정 설명에 맞는 사람을 찾습니다. 이러한 기준의 몇 가지 예는 개인의 일반적인 건강 상태 또는 이전 치료입니다.

자격 기준

공부할 수 있는 나이

21년 (성인)

건강한 자원 봉사자를 받아들입니다

예

연구 대상 성별

모두

설명

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

공부 계획

이 섹션에서는 연구 설계 방법과 연구가 측정하는 내용을 포함하여 연구 계획에 대한 세부 정보를 제공합니다.

연구는 어떻게 설계됩니까?

디자인 세부사항

  • 주 목적: 치료
  • 할당: 무작위
  • 중재 모델: 크로스오버 할당
  • 마스킹: 더블

무기와 개입

참가자 그룹 / 팔
개입 / 치료
실험적: Plaque Disclosed with Air Flow (PDAF)
Plaque will be disclosed prior to polishing with the air flow system.
air polishing with prior plaque disclosing
다른 이름들:
  • EMS
실험적: 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
다른 이름들:
  • Slow speed handpiece
실험적: Non Plaque Disclosed Air Flow (NPD-AF)
Air polishing system will be used to remove the plaque
air polishing with no prior plaque disclosing
다른 이름들:
  • EMS
위약 비교기: Non Plaque Disclosed Rubber Cup (NPD-RC)
Rubber Cup polishing to remove plaque.
rubber cup polishing with no prior plaque disclosing
다른 이름들:
  • Slow speed handpiece

연구는 무엇을 측정합니까?

주요 결과 측정

결과 측정
측정값 설명
기간
post treatment plaque score
기간: 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

2차 결과 측정

결과 측정
측정값 설명
기간
Treatment duration
기간: 1 day
Time taken to complete the polishing by the air flow system or rubber cup polishing
1 day

공동 작업자 및 조사자

여기에서 이 연구와 관련된 사람과 조직을 찾을 수 있습니다.

수사관

  • 수석 연구원: Jia Hui Fu, National University Health System, Singapore

연구 기록 날짜

이 날짜는 ClinicalTrials.gov에 대한 연구 기록 및 요약 결과 제출의 진행 상황을 추적합니다. 연구 기록 및 보고된 결과는 공개 웹사이트에 게시되기 전에 특정 품질 관리 기준을 충족하는지 확인하기 위해 국립 의학 도서관(NLM)에서 검토합니다.

연구 주요 날짜

연구 시작 (실제)

2016년 12월 8일

기본 완료 (실제)

2017년 9월 30일

연구 완료 (실제)

2017년 12월 14일

연구 등록 날짜

최초 제출

2018년 3월 7일

QC 기준을 충족하는 최초 제출

2018년 3월 13일

처음 게시됨 (실제)

2018년 3월 20일

연구 기록 업데이트

마지막 업데이트 게시됨 (실제)

2018년 3월 21일

QC 기준을 충족하는 마지막 업데이트 제출

2018년 3월 20일

마지막으로 확인됨

2018년 3월 1일

추가 정보

이 연구와 관련된 용어

개별 참가자 데이터(IPD) 계획

개별 참가자 데이터(IPD)를 공유할 계획입니까?

아니요

약물 및 장치 정보, 연구 문서

미국 FDA 규제 의약품 연구

아니

미국 FDA 규제 기기 제품 연구

아니

이 정보는 변경 없이 clinicaltrials.gov 웹사이트에서 직접 가져온 것입니다. 귀하의 연구 세부 정보를 변경, 제거 또는 업데이트하도록 요청하는 경우 register@clinicaltrials.gov. 문의하십시오. 변경 사항이 clinicaltrials.gov에 구현되는 즉시 저희 웹사이트에도 자동으로 업데이트됩니다. .

구독하다