Search

Background: The purpose of this 6‐week, single‐blinded, randomized clinical trial was to determine if the use of an interproximal brush, with or without a tracking device, is more effective than an oral irrigator in improving interproximal probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), bleeding on probing (BOP), and inflammatory markers. Methods: Seventy‐six patients with Stages III–IV, Grade B periodontitis and a 5–7 mm posterior interproximal PD with BOP were randomized: (1) interproximal brush alone (IB; n = 26), (2) interproximal brush with tracking device (TD; n = 23), (3) oral irrigator (OI; n = 27). Participants used devices once daily for 6 weeks. Clinical measurements (PD, CAL, PI, BOP, GI) and gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) samples were collected at baseline and 6 weeks. Results: All groups showed a significant reduction in PD and CAL (≥1.1 mm, p < 0.0001) and improvement in BOP (≥56%, p < 0.0001) and GI (≥82%, p < 0.001) at the experimental site with no differences among groups. The IB and IB+TD groups showed a significant reduction in PI (≥0.9, p ≤ 0.01). Interleukin (IL)‐1β was reduced in all groups (p = 0.006), but IB+TB more than OI (p ≤ 0.05). IL‐10 was reduced among all groups (p = 0.01), while interferon‐gamma significantly increased (p = 0.01) in all groups. Conclusions: IB and OI improved clinical parameters of PD and CAL and reduced inflammatory markers (BOP, GI, GCF IL‐1β). IB had better interproximal plaque reduction. Tracking did not significantly improve clinical parameters compared with the IB and OI groups, suggesting future modifications are needed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]