ORAL HEALTH EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE PROGRAM
View the CAT printer-friendly / share this CAT
spacer
Title Sonicare Air Floss is an Effective Plaque Remover
Clinical Question In a patient with gingivitis, is Sonicare Air Floss an effective interdental cleaning device in the reduction of gingivitis and plaque when used on a daily basis?
Clinical Bottom Line Evidence suggests that the Sonicare Air Floss is statistically significant as an effective plaque remover, thereby reducing gingivitis and improving “bleeding on probing,” modified gingival, and plaque indexes.
Best Evidence (you may view more info by clicking on the PubMed ID link)
PubMed ID Author / Year Patient Group Study type
(level of evidence)
#1) 24170371Rmaile/2013Typodont model teeth: upper central with S. Mutans.Laboratory study
Key resultsA prototype Air Floss with a microburst of 115 μL over .033 seconds was used to detach S. Mutans biofilm from interproximal surfaces of maxillary centrals. 95% of the biofilm was removed on surfaces closest to the tip of the nozzle, 62% at ½ the distance labio-palatally, and 8% removal of biofim farthest away from the tip of the nozzle. Most effective biofilm removal was achieved when the nozzle was aimed at mid-tooth occluso-gingivally.
#2) 22435321Sharma/201282 subjects randomized into 2 groups; Waterpik and toothbrush or Air Floss and toothbrushRandomized Controlled Trial
Key resultsBoth Air Floss (AF) and Waterpik (WF) significantly improved the MGI, but the WF was 80% more effective than the AF for the whole mouth. Both AF and WF significantly reduced BOP, but WF outperformed AF (p=0.02) for the whole mouth. For the PI, WF removed 50.9% plaque from the whole mouth, while AF removed 30%.
Evidence Search ("biofilms"[MeSH Terms] OR "biofilms"[All Fields] OR "biofilm"[All Fields]) AND removal[All Fields] AND airfloss[All Fields] (interdental[All Fields] AND cleaning[All Fields]) AND comparison[All Fields]
Comments on
The Evidence
Validity: The Rmaile study showed good results from the Sonicare Air Floss, but since the study was conducted in vitro, the results are not as valid as the Sharma study, which was a randomized controlled trial. The Sharma sample size was adequate with all participants completing the study. All groups that were studied were treated the same in the Sharma study. This study was done over a period of 4 weeks. Waterpik sponsored the article, so study bias is possible, but the Sonicare Air Floss’ results were still proven to be significant. Perspective: Both studies showed the Sonicare Air Floss to be an effective plaque removing aid. Even though the comparison showed Waterpik to be more effective than the Sonicare Air Floss, significant results were obtained also with the use of the Sonicare Air Floss. The Sonicare Air Floss was shown to reduce plaque interproximal areas by 48% and reduce gingivitis by 22.8%.
Applicability Both studies are specific to the PICO question. Both studies are also applicable to dental professionals who are recommending products to their patients to improve their oral hygiene.
Specialty/Discipline (General Dentistry) (Periodontics)
Keywords Biofilm, interdental cleaning, interproximal surface, Modified Gingival Index, Plaque Index
ID# 2648
Date of submission: 02/27/2014spacer
E-mail schulteb@uthscsa.edu
Author Briana Schulte
Co-author(s)
Co-author(s) e-mail
Faculty mentor/Co-author David Lasho, DDS
Faculty mentor/Co-author e-mail lasho@uthscsa.edu
Basic Science Rationale
(Mechanisms that may account for and/or explain the clinical question, i.e. is the answer to the clinical question consistent with basic biological, physical and/or behavioral science principles, laws and research?)
post a rationale
None available
spacer
Comments on the CAT
(FOR PRACTICING DENTISTS' and/or FACULTY COMMENTS ON PUBLISHED CATs)
post a comment
None available
spacer

Return to Found CATs list