Skip to main content

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

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

 Type of interdental area
isosceles triangleconvexconcaveisosceles triangle vs. convexisosceles triangle vs. concaveconvex vs. concave
ECE in %31.14 ± 7.8214.76 ± 7.5517.81 ± 7.67p < 0.001p < 0.001p < 0.001
mean IF in N2.47 ± 1.301.80 ± 1.212.88 ± 2.06p = 0.000p = 0.023p < 0.001
mean push in N1.20 ± 0.571.04 ± 0.651.42 ± 0.98p = 0.020p = 0.010p < 0.001
mean pull in N0.59 ± 0.270.55 ± 0.290.64 ± 0.39p = 0.201p = 0.163p = 0.008
 Size of interdental area
 1.0 mm1.1 mm1.3 mm1.0 mm vs. 1.1 mm1.0 mm vs. 1.3 mm1.1 mm vs. 1.3 mm
ECE in %18.74 ± 12.4918.38 ± 7.5424.53 ± 8.59p = 0.719p < 0.001p < 0.001
mean IF in N2.47 ± 1.622.15 ± 1.663.05 ± 1.95p = 0.038p = 0.001p < 0.001
mean push in N1.22 ± 0.721.10 ± 0.821.55 ± 0.90p = 0.115p < 0.001p < 0.001
mean pull in N0.59 ± 0.310.56 ± 0.390.67 ± 0.28p = 0.385p = 0.011p = 0.001
 Size of the interdental rubber picks
 smallregularlargesmall vs. regularsmall vs. largeregular vs. large
ECE in %17.90 ± 11.017.68 ± 7.4623.96 ± 8.33p = 0.861p < 0.001p < 0.001
mean IF in N1.89 ± 1.582.22 ± 1.043.29 ± 1.90p = 0.049p < 0.001p < 0.001
mean push in N0.95 ± 0.711.05 ± 0.451.70 ± 0.90p = 0.183p < 0.001p < 0.001
mean pull in N0.47 ± 0.310.56 ± 0.210.77 ± 0.34p = 0.007p < 0.001p < 0.001
  1. 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)