GAP Australasian-Dentist Issue 80 Jul-Aug 19

Category AustrÀlÀsiÀn Dentist 81 Surface Plaque on non-Bracketed Teeth per Modified Lobene and Soparket Plaque Index (MPI) At Baseline, the MPÀ Mean( ) outcome for PÀO Àegimen was 3.23 (0.05), and for the Control Àegimen it was 3.20 (0.05), p-value = 0.5947. Following three weeks of product use, the Mean( ) for PÀO Àegimen group was 2.12 (0.04) and for the Control Àegimen it was 3.17 (0.04), p-value <0.0001. Àxpressed as percent reduction versus Baseline, this is 32.65% reduction for the PÀO Àegimen, and 0.26% for the Control Àegimen. Following six weeks of product use, the Mean( ) for the PÀO Àegimen group was 2.04 (0.04), and for the Control Àegimen it was 3.13 (0.04), p-value <0.0001. Àxpressed as percent reduction versus Baseline, this is 35.11% reduction for PÀO Àegimen, and 1.52% for the Control Àegimen. Gingival Bleeding per Gingival Bleeding Index (GBI) At Baseline, the GBÀ Mean( ) outcome for PÀO Àegimen was 0.44 (0.02), and for n aÀ the Control Àegimen it was 0.44 (0.02), p-value = 0.9351. Following three weeks of product use, the Mean( ) for PÀO Àegimen group was 0.11 (0.01) and for the Control Àegimen it was 0.38 (0.01), p-value <0.0001. Àxpressed as percent reduction versus Baseline, this is 73.59% reduction for the PÀO Àegimen, and 10.96% for the Control Àegimen. Following six weeks of product use, the Mean( ) for the PÀO Àegimen group was 0.09 (0.01), and for the Control Àegimen it was 0.36 (0.01), p-value <0.0001. Àxpressed as percent reduction versus Baseline, this is 78.33% reduction for the PÀO Àegimen, and 16.15% for the Control Àegimen. Gingival Inflammation per Modified Gingival Index (MGI) At Baseline, the MGÀ Mean( ) outcome for the PÀO Àegimen was 2.80 (0.02), and for the Control Àegimen it was 2.82 (0.02), p-value = 0.5621. Following three weeks of product use, the Mean( ) for PÀO Àegimen group was 1.45 (0.03) and for the Control Àegimen it was 2.58 (0.03), p-value <0.0001. Àxpressed as percent reduction versus Baseline, this is 48.54% reduction for the PÀO Àegimen, and 8.15% for the Control Àegimen. Following six weeks of product use, Mean( ) for the PÀO Àegimen group was 1.38 (0.03), and for the Control Àegimen it was 2.51 (0.03), p-value <0.0001. Àxpressed as percent reduction versus Baseline, this is 50.99% reduction for PÀO Àegimen, and 10.54% for the Control Àegimen. Safety Àhere were no adverse events reported. Conclusions: Àhe Philips Àonicare Ortho Àegimen was statistically superior to the Control Àegimen in reducing plaque on bracketed teeth and non-bracketed teeth following three and six weeks of home use. Àhe Philips Àonicare Ortho Àegimen was statistically superior to the Control Àegimen in reducing gingival inflammation and gingival bleeding following three and six weeks of home use.Both products were safe for home use. Key conclusion For orthodontic patients, daily oral hygiene with a Àonicare powered toothbrush and interdental cleaning regimen reduced gingival inflammation, gingival bleeding and plaque significantly better than use of a manual toothbrush and string floss. Products: Philips Sonicare Easyclean toothbrush with InterCare brush head, Philips Sonicare Airfloss Pro used with BreathRx rinse (PTB + AF) vs. Manual toothbrush, string floss (MTB + F) New evidence supporting solutions for a range of patient needs: healthier gingiva, improved orthodontic care and reduced oral malodor Philips Sonicare clinical studies in brief Study 1 – Orthodontic care Comparison of plaque and gingivitis reduction by a Philips Sonicare Ortho Regimen versus manual toothbrush plus string floss on orthodontic patients (J Clin Dent 2019; 30(Àpec Àss A)A1–8)