Keywords : irrigator
Comparative Evaluation Of The Efficiency Of Conducting Individual And Professional Hygiene In Prosthetics For Dental Implants
European Journal of Molecular & Clinical Medicine,
2020, Volume 7, Issue 2, Pages 6273-6278
Under our supervision, there were 92 patients with included and terminal defects of the dentition, who underwent prosthetics based on dental implants of the “DIO” system at the Department of Orthopedic Direction FPK TGSI
Control group (13) of the patient, “manual toothbrush” - during the entire study period, patients used only a manual toothbrush to clean the crowns on implants;
The second group (30) of patients who were prescribed a “manual toothbrush + interdental brush”, corresponding to the size of the proximal space of the orthopedic construction;
The third group (49) of patients who were prescribed a “manual toothbrush + interdental brush + irrigator”, in addition to a manual toothbrush, were prescribed an interdental brush and an oral irrigator, an irrigator Waterpik WP-660 (Aquarius) was prescribed for the oral cavity after brushing teeth twice per day for 3-5 minutes, the power of the water jet of the irrigator corresponded to mode 2.
An index assessment of the amount of plaque in the area of a fixed structure on implants was carried out using a simplified index of oral hygiene (IGR-U) (J. R. Vermillion, 1964)
The condition of the gums in the area of dental implants was assessed based on the Gingival Index (GI) - Loe & Silness, 1963.
Thus, at the beginning of the study in all three groups, the HI was low and corresponded to good implant hygiene. After 3 and 6 months, the values of those indices were significantly worse, and corresponded to the unsatisfactory hygiene of the implants. In groups 2 and 3, throughout the entire study, HI indices were optimal and corresponded to good and satisfactory implant hygiene. The indicators of the 3rd group, in which the whole complex of individual and professional methods was applied, were the most positive throughout the study, in comparison with other groups.
Analysis of the results of the Gingival Index study showed that the indicator increased in all observation groups.
In group 2 patients using manual dental and interdental brushes for cleaning the structure, by the end of the study period the index value increased to 0.95 ± 0.05 points, which corresponded to mild gingivitis of the gums in the area of implants, i.e. there was slight hyperemia and individual punctate bleeding of the gums at the probing sites. Patients of the 3rd group, using an irrigator, had minimal index values at all periods of the study, and the index values were interpreted as “normal gums”, that is, no signs of gingivitis were recorded.