medigraphic.com
SPANISH

Revista ADM Órgano Oficial de la Asociación Dental Mexicana

ISSN 0001-0944 (Print)
Órgano Oficial de la Asociación Dental Mexicana
  • Contents
  • View Archive
  • Information
    • General Information        
    • Directory
  • Publish
    • Instructions for authors        
    • Send manuscript
  • medigraphic.com
    • Home
    • Journals index            
    • Register / Login
  • Mi perfil

2021, Number 4

<< Back Next >>

Rev ADM 2021; 78 (4)

Effectiveness of electric versus manual toothbrush for biofilm removal in patients with Down syndrome.

Torres TDA, Rocha NML, Núñez GGJ
Full text How to cite this article 10.35366/101072

DOI

DOI: 10.35366/101072
URL: https://dx.doi.org/10.35366/101072

Language: Spanish
References: 12
Page: 189-194
PDF size: 226.61 Kb.


Key words:

Electric toothbrush, manual toothbrush, dental plaque, biofilm, Down syndrome, O\'Leary index.

ABSTRACT

Introduction: Oral health in patients having Down syndrome (DS) is a challenge since the changes in motor skills caused by intellectual disability (ID) deteriorate tasks such as the removal of biofilm or dental plaque (DP) with brushing. The effectiveness of electric toothbrushes (ET) compared to manual toothbrushes (MT) in DS patients remains debatable since no homogeneity of results has been found. Further research on the subject is advisable as DS is considered the most frequent chromosomal alteration and the leading cause of ID in the world. Objective: To know the effectiveness of the ET in contrast to the MT for the removal of DP in Mexican DS patients between six and 14 years old. Material and methods: Experimental cross-sectional study, with the pairing of DS subjects of both genders according to age (six to 14 years), assigning the brush to be used (group 1 MT or group 2 ET). Dental education and brushing were performed employing the Fones technique and DP control before and after brushing employing the O'Leary index for three days. The results were analyzed using descriptive and inferential statistics (Lilliefors normality test, t-test for independent and dependent variables). A significance test p < 0.05 was accepted. Results: The t-test for independent samples showed an improvement in the increase of the O'Leary index in the complete group in the three days of follow-up respectively (t = 6.9, p < 0.00002; t = 8.4, p < 0.00000; and t = 9.5, p < 0.00000). When comparing by t-test for dependent samples the baseline O'Leary index versus each of the follow-up evaluations, significant differences were also observed in both groups (group 1: p = 0.003, p = 0.0006 and p = 0.0017; group 2: p = 0.007, p = 0.0006 and p = 0.0002). Conclusion: The dental education and motivation of the patient were decisive for the good performance of tooth brushing and removal of the plaque in both groups. The reaffirmation of the Fones technique gradually increases the improvement of the brushing technique in DS children. Both brushings using MT and ET were effective in removing the biofilm significantly. However, a greater improvement was observed in the group with ET, suggesting that it reduces their difficulty with tooth brushing. This line of research is important to benefit the oral condition of this population.


REFERENCES

  1. Delgado-Arteaga A, Reyna-Márquez M, Murillo-Flores V, López-González A, Rodríguez-Paniagua O, Gómez-Castañón G et al. Manejo odontológico en paciente con Síndrome de Down. Revista Latinoamericana de Ortodoncia y Odontopediatría. 2019.

  2. Sierra Romero MC, Navarrete Hernández E, Canún Serrano S, Reyes Aldelmo PE, Valdés Hernández J. Prevalencia del síndrome de Down en México utilizando los certificados de nacimiento vivo y de muerte fetal durante el periodo 2008-2011. Bol Med Hosp Infant Mex. 2014; 71 (5): 292-297.

  3. Zuluaga M, Martínez C, Cardona N, Gutiérrez L, Giraldo A, Jiménez M. Manejo de la salud bucal en discapacitados. Rev CES Odont. 2017; 30 (2): 23-36.

  4. Organización Mundial de la Salud. Discapacidad y Salud [en línea]. OMS; 2018 [fecha de acceso 1 de octubre de 2020]. Disponible en: https://www.who.int/es/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/disability-and-health

  5. Peredo Videa RA. Comprendiendo la discapacidad intelectual:: datos, criterios y reflexiones. Rev Invest Psicol. 2016; (15): 101-122.

  6. Newman MG, Takei HH, Klokkevold PR, Carranza FA. Periodonto logia clínica de Carranza. 13a edición. USA: Elsevier; 2019.

  7. Nápoles González IJ, Fernández Collazo ME, Jiménez Beato P. Evolución histórica del cepillo dental. Rev Cubana Estomatol. 2015; 52 (2): 208-216

  8. Márquez JC, Lacruz RR. Aspectos morfológicos y psicológicos en el diseño de cepillos dentales. PORTAFOLIO. 2004; 1 (9): 16A-24A.

  9. Aguirre J, Porras D, Ríos K. Estrategia de intervención educativa sobre la salud bucal en pacientes de 6 a 32 años con síndrome de Down. Rev Estomatol Herediana. 2015; 25 (4): 262-267.

  10. Calvo JC. Cepillos dentales oscilantes-rotacionales. Pulsátiles: evidencia científica. RCOE. 2015; 20 (Supl 1).

  11. Meléndez D. Evaluación de la eficacia en la remoción de biopelícula dental mediante el uso de cepillo manual y eléctrico en niños con síndrome de Down [Tesis de Licenciatura]. Ecuador: Universidad de las Américas; 2016.

  12. Silva AM, Miranda LFB, Araujo ASM, Prado Junior RR, Mendes RF. Electric toothbrush for biofilm control in individuals with Down syndrome: a crossover randomized clinical trial. Braz Oral Res. 2020; 34:e057. doi: 10.1590/1807-3107bor-2020.vol34.0057. PMID: 32578800.




Figure 1
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4

2020     |     www.medigraphic.com

Mi perfil

C?MO CITAR (Vancouver)

Rev ADM. 2021;78