New experimental setup for the measurement of cleaning efficacy and force of interdental aids in 3D-reproduced interdental areas

Table 1 Overall results of experimental cleaning efficacy (ECE in %) and forces (in N)

	Type of interdental area
	isosceles triangle	convex	concave	isosceles triangle vs. convex	isosceles triangle vs. concave	convex vs. concave
ECE in %	31.14 ± 7.82	14.76 ± 7.55	17.81 ± 7.67	p < 0.001	p < 0.001	p < 0.001
mean IF in N	2.47 ± 1.30	1.80 ± 1.21	2.88 ± 2.06	p = 0.000	p = 0.023	p < 0.001
mean push in N	1.20 ± 0.57	1.04 ± 0.65	1.42 ± 0.98	p = 0.020	p = 0.010	p < 0.001
mean pull in N	0.59 ± 0.27	0.55 ± 0.29	0.64 ± 0.39	p = 0.201	p = 0.163	p = 0.008
	Size of interdental area
	1.0 mm	1.1 mm	1.3 mm	1.0 mm vs. 1.1 mm	1.0 mm vs. 1.3 mm	1.1 mm vs. 1.3 mm
ECE in %	18.74 ± 12.49	18.38 ± 7.54	24.53 ± 8.59	p = 0.719	p < 0.001	p < 0.001
mean IF in N	2.47 ± 1.62	2.15 ± 1.66	3.05 ± 1.95	p = 0.038	p = 0.001	p < 0.001
mean push in N	1.22 ± 0.72	1.10 ± 0.82	1.55 ± 0.90	p = 0.115	p < 0.001	p < 0.001
mean pull in N	0.59 ± 0.31	0.56 ± 0.39	0.67 ± 0.28	p = 0.385	p = 0.011	p = 0.001
	Size of the interdental rubber picks
	small	regular	large	small vs. regular	small vs. large	regular vs. large
ECE in %	17.90 ± 11.0	17.68 ± 7.46	23.96 ± 8.33	p = 0.861	p < 0.001	p < 0.001
mean IF in N	1.89 ± 1.58	2.22 ± 1.04	3.29 ± 1.90	p = 0.049	p < 0.001	p < 0.001
mean push in N	0.95 ± 0.71	1.05 ± 0.45	1.70 ± 0.90	p = 0.183	p < 0.001	p < 0.001
mean pull in N	0.47 ± 0.31	0.56 ± 0.21	0.77 ± 0.34	p = 0.007	p < 0.001	p < 0.001

Force for insertion into the artificial interdental area as well as during ten cleaning cycles (mean push/pull) according the three different morphologies (isosceles triangle, convex, concave) and sizes (1.0 mm, 1.1 mm, 1.3 mm) of artificial interdental area. We assumed p < 0.05 to be statistically significant (ANOVA, paired t-test, two sided)

ISSN: 1472-6831