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

Table 2 Subgroup results (mean ± SD) of experimental cleaning efficacy (ECE in %) and forces (in N)

Morphology and size of interdental area	Height of concave interdental area	ECE in %		p-value	insertion force in N		p-value	mean push in N		p-value	mean pull in N		p-value
Morphology and size of interdental area	Height of concave interdental area	IRP-F	IRP-S	p-value	IRP-F	IRP-S	p-value	IRP-F	IRP-S	p-value	IRP-F	IRP-S	p-value
Isosceles triangle		31.18 ± 7.22	31.09 ± 1.55	p = 0.944	3.34 ± 1.09	1.60 ± 0.83	p < 0.001	1.55 ± 0.50	0.85 ± 0.38	p < 0.001	0.73 ± 0.26	0.45 ± 0.19	p < 0.001
convex		16.69 ± 9.61	13.08 ± 4.58	p = 0.003	2.30 ± 1.12	1.47 ± 1.18	p < 0.001	1.25 ± 0.6	0.87 ± 0.64	p < 0.001	0.65 ± 1.73	0.47 ± 0.33	p < 0.001
concave	3 mm	21.08 ± 6.59	19.54 ± 5.75	p = 0.131	5.20 ± 1.84	3.39 ± 1.95	p < 0.001	2.45 ± 0.90	1.67 ± 0.97	p < 0.001	0.96 ± 0.23	0.8 ± 0.45	p = 0.004
	5 mm	17.32 ± 8.17	13.58 ± 8.20	p = 0.007	1.98 ± 0.88	1.33 ± 0.87	p < 0.001	1.01 ± 0.46	0.71 ± 0.43	p < 0.001	0.48 ± 0.21	0.35 ± 0.21	p < 0.001
	3 + 5 mm	19.10 ± 7.67	16.86 ± 7.55	p = 0.013	3.60 ± 2.16	2.36 ± 1.83	p < 0.001	1.73 ± 1.02	1.19 ± 0.89	p < 0.001	0.72 ± 0.33	0.57 ± 0.42	p < 0.001
1.0 mm		19.14 ± 11.7	18.36 ± 13.22	p = 0.213	3.23 ± 1.73	1.73 ± 1.10	p < 0.001	1.56 ± 0.77	0.88 ± 0.47	p < 0.001	0.74 ± 0.32	0.44 ± 0.21	p < 0.001
1.1 mm		17.68 ± 7.46	18.82 ± 7.58	p = 0.844	2.22 ± 1.04	2.11 ± 1.93	p = 0.605	1.05 ± 0.44	1.13 ± 0.98	p < 0.001	0.56 ± 0.21	0.57 ± 0.47	p < 0.001
1.3 mm		28.17 ± 6.82	20.53 ± 8.59	p < 0.001	4.13 ± 1.96	1.97 ± 1.19	p < 0.001	2.10 ± 0.90	1.04 ± 0.54	p < 0.001	0.82 ± 0.24	0.53 ± 0.25	p < 0.001

Force for insertion (IF) into the artificial interdental area as well as during ten cleaning cycles (mean push/pull) for cleaning different types (isosceles triangle, convex, concave) and sizes (1.0 mm, 1.1 mm, 1.3 mm) of the interdental area separated for the tested interdental rubber picks with fingers-design (IRP-F) versus slats-design (IRP-S). We assumed p < 0.05 to be statistically significant (ANOVA, paired t-test, two sided)

ISSN: 1472-6831