COMPARISON BETWEEN TWO ELECTRIC INTERPROXIMAL CLEANING DEVICES IN THE REDUCTION OF GINGIVITIS 

Aim 

To compare the Waterpik^® oral irrigator with the Sonicare^® Air Floss in the reduction of gingivitis and oral biofilm in a period of 4 weeks. 

Methods 

Eighty two subjects participated in this 4-week randomised, single-blind clinical study. Subjects were assigned to one of two groups: Waterpik^® Oral Irrigator plus a manual toothbrush; or Sonicare^® Air Floss plus a manual toothbrush. Subjects received instructions on the correct use of interproximal cleaning devices following the manufacturer’s guidelines. They were also given instructions on the Bass toothbrushing method. Gingival indexes for whole mouth and lingual areas were recorded using the Modified Gingival Index. Plaque indexes for whole mouth, facial, lingual, marginal and interproximal areas were recorded using the Rustogi modified Navy Plaque Index (RMNPI). 

Results 

The Waterpik^® oral irrigator was significantly more effective than the Sonicare^® Air Floss in reducing plaque and gingivitis from all of the areas studied after 4 weeks of use. The Waterpik^® oral irrigator was 80% more effective than the Sonicare^® Air Floss in the overall reduction of gingivitis, and 70% more effective in reducing plaque. The Waterpik^® oral irrigator was also two times more effective in removing plaque from lingual surfaces and over 3 times more effective in the gingival margin when compared to the Sonicare^® Air Floss. 

Conclusion 

The Waterpik^® oral irrigator is significantly more effective than the Sonicare^® Air Floss at reducing gingivitis and plaque.