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