Click here for article with images
Inside Dental Assisting
Nov/Dec 2012,
Volume 11, Issue 6
Published by AEGIS Communications
Interdental cleaning is an important part of a patient’s personal oral
care regimen. Water flossers, also known as oral irrigators or dental
water jets, can play a vital, effective role in interdental hygiene.
Evidence has shown a significant reduction in plaque biofilm from tooth
surfaces and the reduction of subgingival pathogenic bacteria from
pockets as deep as 6 mm with the use of water flossing. In addition,
water flossers have been shown to reduce gingivitis, bleeding, probing
pocket depth, host inflammatory mediators, and calculus. Educating
patients on the use of a water flosser as part of their oral hygiene
routine can be a valuable tool in maintaining oral health.
Interdental Cleaning
There are several goals to personal oral hygiene, including preventing
oral infection and disease, maintaining the results achieved from
debridement and other oral hygiene procedures, protecting the esthetic
investment, and limiting the inflammatory burden both orally and
systemically. This can be a difficult task, especially for individuals
who are at increased risk for periodontal disease.
Interdental cleaning is a key step in a personal oral care regimen.
Traditionally, personal oral hygiene starts with brushing and flossing. A
considerable amount of chairside instruction is devoted to teaching
flossing, yet the success of changing behavior is minimal at best.
Patients state a variety of reasons for not flossing, including it is
difficult to do, and when given a choice they readily choose other
interdental devices such as brushes and floss holders over floss.1-3
A water flosser, also known as an oral irrigator or dental water jet,
has been around for almost 50 years. Use of this type of product by
consumers or recommendations by dental professionals has waxed and waned
over the decades. This has been primarily related to anecdotal comments
and articles stating water flossers do not remove plaque biofilm or
cause bacteria to go deeper into the pocket. This, however, has never
been a valid argument as evidence has shown a significant reduction in
plaque biofilm from tooth surfaces as well as the reduction of
subgingival pathogenic bacteria from pockets as deep as 6 mm with the
use of a water flosser.4,5 In addition, a water flosser has
been shown to reduce gingivitis, bleeding, probing pocket depth, host
inflammatory mediators, and calculus.6-12
Research
Three clinical trials have been conducted that evaluated the impact of
brushing and water flossing compared to brushing and flossing. In 2005,
Barnes et al compared manual or power brushing plus a water flosser with
a classic jet tip to manual brushing and flossing.8 Results
demonstrated, regardless of toothbrush used, the addition of a water
flosser was better at reducing gingivitis and gingival bleeding compared
to brushing and flossing (Figure 1).
The power brush and water flosser removed significantly more plaque
than the manual brush and floss. There was no difference between the
manual toothbrush and water flosser and manual brush and floss for
reducing plaque biofilm.
A 2008 study by Sharma et al evaluated the efficacy of a specialized
orthodontic tip with adolescents in fixed appliances compared to
flossing.11 The control group used a manual toothbrush only.
Results showed that the water flosser was significantly better than
brushing and flossing or brushing alone for reducing plaque biofilm and
gingival bleeding (Figure 2).
Most recently, Rosema et al compared manual brush plus a water flosser
with either a standard jet tip or a new prototype tip to manual brush
and flossing.12 At 4 weeks, it was evident that either tip
plus manual toothbrushing were significantly better at reducing bleeding
than flossing. Notably, the flossing group showed no difference
statistically or numerically from baseline to 4 weeks. The 13% reduction
seen at 2 weeks reverted back to baseline (0%) at 4 weeks.
How Water Flossing Works
The combination of pulsation and pressure are the key elements to the
efficacy of a water flosser. Research shows that the production of 1,200
to 1,400 pulsations per minute with a pressure range of medium to high
or 50 psi to 90 psi produced the best results.13 It was also
shown to be safe on gingival tissue. This combination of pulsation and
pressure produces a compression and decompression phase that expels
debris and bacteria from subgingival and interdental areas.
Not all water flossers, oral irrigators, or dental water jets are the
same. Some have pressure and pulsation specifications out of the
efficacy range demonstrated in clinical studies and some are
continuous-stream devices that have been shown to be less effective than
pulsating models.14 Each product should be evaluated on its
body of evidence, as clinical studies on one product do not support
efficacy for another.
Patient Compliance
Patients do not use products that are difficult or cumbersome
regardless of need or clinical results. This has been shown in medical
research even when it can be a life and death situation. For instance, 1
in 8 (12.5%) people who have had a heart attack stopped taking all
medications by 1 month after hospital discharge.15 Eighteen
percent dropped at least one drug, and another 4% discontinued two
drugs. Fifty percent of people with chronic disease complied with
recommendations, irrespective of disease, treatment or age.16
Compliance with oral hygiene is no different. Data shows that only 2% to 10% of the population floss regularly and effectively.17,18 It has also been reported that a substantial part of the population never floss at all.19
A recent American Dental Association (ADA) survey showed that only
32.9% reported using dental floss or other interdental cleaner once per
day.20 Brushing alone cannot remove all the plaque from the
tooth surface even when done correctly and thoroughly. However, the
average brushing time is around 37 seconds. Good oral hygiene can
deteriorate over time without reinforcement. Subjects who were given
brushing and flossing instructions achieved significant improvements in
plaque scores within a few weeks. These scores deteriorated to baseline
within a year.21
Compliance and acceptance of a water flosser has been tested in a few
studies. Hoover and Robinson noted that subjects stated they felt using a
water flosser was a pleasant experience and their mouths felt cleaner.22 A 3-month study evaluated the efficacy of two water flosser devices.23
At the end of the 3 months subjects were not given any instructions
regarding the water flosser use or that they would be re-examined 1 year
later. On the 1-year anniversary, 21 subjects stated they were still
using the water flosser daily and 29 were using it 1 to 3 times a week
because “it stimulated the gums and made the teeth feel cleaner.”
Sixteen subjects used it less than once a week and 49 discontinued use
once they thought the study was over. Of the original 115 subjects
ranging in age from 14 to 63, 74% were still using the water flosser 1
year later.
At the end of a study involving 11- to 17-year-olds with fixed
orthodontic appliances, 92% of the subjects who used a water flosser
stated they would continue to use the product daily or frequently
compared to 58.8% for floss. A total of 94.4% stated the water flosser
was very easy or somewhat easy to use compared to 52.9% for floss.11
Patients Who Benefit
The water flosser has been tested with specific patient populations and
oral conditions. It has been shown to be safe and effective with
implants.24 It may be especially helpful cleaning overdenture
abutments and bars, or implant-supported fixed complete dentures. The
pulsating water can access areas that may not be accessible by a
toothbrush. Cleaning around crowns and bridges, veneers, and other
restorations can be tedious and difficult. A water flosser is a good
choice for cleaning around the margins and abutments, under the pontic,
and interdentally and subgingivally. The same is true for cleaning
orthodontic appliances. The water flosser is significantly better than
brushing alone, which most children and young adults do, or brushing and
flossing.25 Additionally, research has demonstrated that
patients who present with gingivitis, mild to moderate periodontitis,
diabetes, and good oral hygiene can benefit from using a water flosser.4-7,26
Recommendations
Product type: There are two basic designs on the market: countertop and
cordless. Countertop models have large reservoirs and multiple pressure
settings to accommodate personal preferences. Pricing is usually well
below the cost of some leading power toothbrushes. Cordless units are
smaller and power from rechargeable batteries. They tend to have fewer
pressure settings and smaller reservoirs. These are good for individuals
who travel or prefer not to have something on the counter.
Agent: Water has been shown to be a very effective agent. Most
commercially available devices are designed to accept most mouthrinses
and antimicrobial agents. Water is cost-effective, has no side effects,
and is readily available.
Tip design: Different tip designs are available that can help customize
recommendations for each patient. For example, a tip can be designed
for placement below the gingival margin, which is especially useful for
targeted delivery of antimicrobial agents in deep pockets. Tips may
feature bristles designed for implants, crown and bridge, veneers, and
other dental work. Tips can also be designed with a tapered brush for
cleaning orthodontic appliances.
Conclusion
The patient’s ability to perform regular and effective self-care is
important to the long-term success of therapeutic and restorative
treatment and overall well-being. If patients are brushing and flossing
and they have no clinical, radiographic, or other signs of infections,
no major intervention is needed. However, if they are not flossing or
have clinical signs of gingival or periodontal infection, then perhaps
it is time to recommend an effective alternative such as a water
flosser.
References
1. Lang WP, Ronis DL, Farghaly MM. Preventive behaviors as correlates of periodontal health status. J Public Health Dent. 1995;55(1):10-17.
2. Tedesco LA, Keffer MA, Fleck-Kandath C. Self-efficacy, reasoned
action, and oral health behavior reports: a social cognitive approach to
compliance. J Behav Med. 1991;14(4):341-355.
3. Christou V, Timmerman MF, Van der Velden U, Van der Weijden FA.
Comparison of different approaches of interdental oral hygiene:
interdental brushes versus dental floss. J Periodontol. 1998;69(7):759-764.
4. Gorur A, Lyle DM, Schaudinn C, Costerton JW. Biofilm removal with a dental water jet. Compend Contin Ed Dent. 2009;30(spec iss 1):1-6.
5. Cobb CM, Rodgers RL, Killoy WJ. Ultrastructural examination of human
periodontal pockets following the use of an oral irrigation device in
vivo. J Periodontol. 1988;59(3):155-163.
6. Cutler CW, Stanford TW, Abraham C, et al. Clinical benefits of oral
irrigation for periodontitis are related to reduction of
pro-inflammatory cytokine levels and plaque. J Clin Periodontol. 2000;27(2):134-143.
7. Flemmig TF, Epp B, Funkenhauser Z, et al. Adjunctive supragingival
irrigation with acetylsalicylic acid in periodontal supportive therapy. J Clin Periodontol. 1995;22(6):427-433.
8. Barnes CM, Russell CM, Reinhardt RA, et al. Comparison of irrigation
to floss as an adjunct to toothbrushing: effect on bleeding,
gingivitis, and supragingival plaque. J Clin Dent. 2005;16(3):71-77.
9. Al-Mubarak S, Ciancio S, Aljada A, et al. Comparative evaluation of adjunctive oral irrigation in diabetics. J Clin Periodontol. 2002;29(4):295-300.
10. Lobene RR. The effect of a pulsed water pressure cleansing device on oral health. J Periodontol. 1969;40(11):667-670.
11. Sharma NC, Lyle DM, Qaqish JG, et al. Effect of a dental water jet
with orthodontic tip on plaque and bleeding in adolescent patients with
fixed orthodontic appliances. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2008;133(4):565-571.
12. Rosema NA, Hennequin-Hoenderdos, NL, Berchier CE, et al. The effect
of different interdental cleaning devices on gingival bleeding. J Int Acad Periodontol. 2011;13(1):2-10.
13. Bhaskar SN, Cutright DE, Frisch J. Effect of high pressure water jet on oral mucosa of varied density. J Periodontol. 1969;40(10):593-598.
14. Selting WJ, Bhaskar SN, Mueller RP. Water jet direction and periodontal pocket debridement. J Periodontol. 1972;43(9):569-572.
15. Ho PM, Spertus JA, Masoudi FA, et al. Impact of medication therapy
discontinuation on mortality after myocardial infarction. Arch Intern Med. 2006;166(17):1842-1847.
16. Bloom BS. Daily regimen and compliance with treatment. BMJ. 2001;323(7314):647.
17. Macgregor ID, Balding JW, Regis D. Flossing behavior in English adolescents. J Clin Periodontol. 1998;25(4):291-296.
18. Stewart JE, Strack S, Graves P. Development of oral hygiene self-efficacy and outcome expectancy questionnaires. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 1997;25(5):337-342.
19. Bader HI. Floss or die: implications for dental professionals. Dent Today. 1998;17(7):76-82.
20. Just The Facts: Flossing. ADA Survey Center, ADA News, November 2007.
21. Ciancio S. Improving oral health: current considerations. J Clin Periodontol. 2003;30(suppl 5):4-6.
22. Hoover DR, Robinson HB. The comparative effectiveness of a
pulsating oral irrigator as an adjunct in maintaining oral health. J Periodontol. 1971;42(1):37-39.
23. Lainson PA, Bergquist JJ, Fraleigh CM. A longitudinal study of pulsating water pressure cleansing devices. J Periodontol. 1972;43(7):444-446.
24. Felo A, Shibly O, Ciancio SG, et al. Effects of subgingival chlorhexidine irrigation on peri-implant maintenance. Am J Dent. 1997;10(2):107-110.
25. Chaves ES, Kornman KS, Manwell MA, et al. Mechanism of irrigation effects on gingivitis. J Periodontol. 1994;65(11):1016-1021.
26. Hujoel PP, Cunha-Cruz J, Banting DW, Loesche WJ. Dental flossing and interproximal caries: a systematic review. J Dent Res. 2006;85(4):298-305.
About the Author
Deborah M. Lyle, RDH, MS
Director of Professional and Clinical Affairs
Water Pik, Inc.
Director of Professional and Clinical Affairs
Water Pik, Inc.
I remember reading your post and thinking that I wasn’t alone as well. It’s a very hard subject to talk about. Home Cleaning Wellington
ReplyDelete