Outcomes of Dental Water Jet compared to Traditional Dental
Floss
Home >
WaterPik > Article
Comparison of Irrigation to Floss as an Adjunct to Toothbrushing:
Effect on Bleeding, Gingivitis, and Supragingival Plaque
Barnes CM, Russell CM, Reinhardt RA, Payne JB, Lyle DM
Journal of Clinical Dentistry, 2005; 16(3): In PressObjective:
To assess the efficacy of the addition of daily oral irrigation
to both power and manual tooth brushing to a traditional regime
of manual tooth brushing and flossing to determine which regimen
has the greatest effect on the reduction of gingival bleeding, gingivitis
and supragingival plaque.
Design:
Examiner blind, parallel, randomized, single-center, four-week
study.
Methodology:
One hundred five (105) subjects aged 19-70 years of age, in good
general health, with at least 20 evaluable teeth and an overall
mean plaque score of 2.0 and 50% bleeding sites were entered into
the study. Subjects reported brushing at least daily. Data was collected
at baseline (BSL), day 14 (D14) and day 28 (D28).
Written and verbal brushing, flossing and irrigation instructions
were provided. Subjects were asked to brush for two minutes twice
a day and to floss once daily in the evening. Irrigation was to
be done once daily in the evening with the pressure set at medium
with 500 ml of luke warm water. No additional oral hygiene aids,
including therapeutic rinsing were allowed. Subjects were randomized
to three groups:
- Group 1 (G1/control): Manual tooth brushing (Oral-B®
35, Oral-B® Laboratories, Boston, MA) and dental floss (Reach®
Floss, Johnson & Johnson, Skillman, NJ)
- Group 2 (G2): Manual toothbrush (Oral-B® 35) and
a Waterpik® dental water jet (Model
WP-60W, Waterpik Technologies, Fort Collins, CO)
- Group 3 (G3): Waterpik® SenSonic® toothbrush (Model
SR-700W, Waterpik Technologies, Fort Collins, CO) and a
Waterpik® dental water jet (Model
WP-60W).
Results:
- Gingivitis index (GI): At D14 and D28, G2 was significantly
better than G1 for the facial surfaces. G3 was significantly
better than G1 at D14 but not at D28 for the facial surfaces.
On the lingual surfaces, there were no significant differences
between the groups at D14. At D28, G2 was significantly better
than G1 on the lingual surfaces.
- Bleeding index (BI): On the facial surfaces, both
irrigation groups (G2 and G3) were significantly greater than
G1 at D14 and D28. For the lingual surfaces, there were no significant
differences between G1 and G2 or between G1and G3 at any follow-up
point.
- Plaque index (PI): For the facial surfaces, G3 was
significantly better than G1 at D14 and D28. G2 was significantly
better than G1 at D14, but at D28 there were no significant
differences. For the lingual surfaces, there were no significant
differences between G2 and G1 or G3 and G1 at any follow-up
point.
Percent Reduction from Baseline to D14
Clinical
Reduction |
MTB + OI
Group 2 |
PTB + OI
Group 3 |
MTB + FL
Group 1 |
| Gingivitis/facial |
17.1%* |
15.8%* |
11.3% |
| Gingivitis/lingual |
13.5% |
11.9% |
12.4% |
| Bleeding/facial |
64.2%* |
60.6%* |
47.3% |
| Bleeding/lingual |
40.7% |
41.0% |
31.2% |
| Plaque/facial |
11.5%* |
17.6* |
5.1% |
| Plaque/lingual |
9.5% |
9.9% |
5.7% |
*Statistically significant difference
compared to MTB + FL at D14
Percent Reduction from Baseline to D28
Clinical
Reduction |
MTB + OI
Group 2 |
PTB + OI
Group 3 |
MTB + FL
Group 1 |
| Gingivitis/facial |
15.1%* |
11.4% |
9.9% |
| Gingivitis/lingual |
14.2%* |
10.8% |
9.4% |
| Bleeding/facial |
59.2%* |
50.6%* |
30.6% |
| Bleeding/lingual |
37.7% |
36.2% |
26.9% |
| Plaque/facial |
8.8% |
17.3%* |
9.0% |
| Plaque/lingual |
10.2% |
9.4% |
8.1% |
*Statistically significant difference compared to MTB + FL at
D28
Conclusions:
- At the conclusion of the study, a manual toothbrush plus
a Waterpik® dental water jet was 93% better in reducing facial
bleeding and 52% better at reducing facial gingivitis than manual
brushing and flossing.
- At the conclusion of the study, a power toothbrush plus
a Waterpik® dental water jet was 65% better at reducing facial
bleeding and 92% better at reducing facial plaque than manual
brushing and flossing.
Clinical Implications:
- This study indicates that when combined with tooth brushing,
oral irrigation is an effective alternative to traditional dental
floss for reducing bleeding, gingival inflammation and plaque
and in some cases may provide superior results for reducing
bleeding and gingival inflammation.
- Significant improvements in oral health occurred regardless
of toothbrush type, so it is likely that many patients currently
using a power toothbrush may get further improvements in oral
health by the addition of oral irrigation.
- The recommendation of a Waterpik® dental water jet is a
viable alternative in order to achieve desired outcomes for
non-compliant individuals or those who cannot floss effectively.
Waterpik Service
Locator - Click Here
|