Comparison of clinical efficacy and patient acceptance of interdental brush and silicone coated interdental pick: a randomized split-mouth, prospective clinical trial


CLINICAL ORAL INVESTIGATIONS, vol.24, no.6, pp.2121-2127, 2020 (SCI-Expanded) identifier identifier identifier

  • Publication Type: Article / Article
  • Volume: 24 Issue: 6
  • Publication Date: 2020
  • Doi Number: 10.1007/s00784-020-03293-6
  • Journal Indexes: Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-EXPANDED), Scopus, Academic Search Premier, EMBASE, MEDLINE
  • Page Numbers: pp.2121-2127
  • Çanakkale Onsekiz Mart University Affiliated: Yes


Objectives The aim of this split-mouth, prospective controlled study was to compare the effects of two different interdental devices on clinical plaque elimination, gingival bleeding and patient acceptance and comfort. Materials and methods Thirty participants who had been diagnosed with gingivitis were included in the study. After professional oral prophylaxis and a 3-day washout period, patients were advised to use two test devices (TePe Interdental Brushes Original and TePe EasyPick (TM), Malmo, Sweden) according to instructions. The plaque index (Turesky modification of the Quigley and Hein Index) and bleeding index (Papillary Bleeding Index) were recorded at baseline and after 2 weeks. Patient satisfaction and comfort were assessed with a questionnaire. Results Both of the tested devices improved the plaque and bleeding index scores. There were no differences between the two sides in terms of time-dependent changes. The patients felt more satisfied with the cleansing capacity and more comfortable with the use of SCIP compared with IDB (p = 0.001). Pain sensation with the use of SCIP was significantly lower than with IDB (p = 0.002). Conclusion The clinical efficiency of the tested interdental devices was similar in terms of removing plaque and decreasing bleeding. However, SCIP were found to be more comfortable and preferable to IDB.