Comparative evaluation of the efficiency of conducting individual and professional hygiene in prosthetics for dental implants

Under our supervision, there were 92 patients  with included and terminal defects of the dentition, who underwent prosthetics based on dental implants of the “DIO” system at the Department of Orthopedic Direction FPK TGSI Control  group  (13)  of  the  patient,  “manual  toothbrush”  -  during  the  entire  study period, patients used only a manual toothbrush to clean the crowns on implants; The  second  group  (30)  of  patients  who  were  prescribed  a  “manual  toothbrush  + interdental  brush”,  corresponding  to  the  size  of  the  proximal  space  of  the  orthopedic construction; The  third  group  (49)  of  patients  who  were  prescribed  a  “manual  toothbrush  + interdental  brush  +  irrigator”,  in  addition  to  a  manual  toothbrush,  were  prescribed  an interdental  brush  and  an  oral  irrigator,  an  irrigator  Waterpik  WP-660  (Aquarius)  was prescribed for the oral cavity after brushing teeth twice per day for 3-5 minutes, the power of the water jet of the irrigator corresponded to mode 2. An  index  assessment  of  the  amount  of  plaque  in  the  area  of  a  fixed  structure  on implants  was  carried  out  using  a  simplified  index  of  oral  hygiene  (IGR-U)  (J.  R. Vermillion, 1964) The condition of the gums in the area of dental implants was assessed based on the Gingival Index (GI) - Loe & Silness, 1963. Thus,  at  the  beginning  of  the  study  in  all  three  groups,  the  HI  was  low  and corresponded to good implant hygiene. After 3 and 6 months, the values of those indices were significantly worse, and corresponded to the unsatisfactory hygiene of the implants. In groups 2 and 3, throughout the entire study, HI indices were optimal and corresponded to good and satisfactory implant hygiene. The indicators of the 3rd group, in which the whole complex of individual and professional methods was applied, were the most positive throughout the study, in comparison with other groups. Analysis  of  the  results  of  the  Gingival  Index  study  showed  that  the  indicator increased in all observation groups. In  group  2  patients  using manual  dental  and  interdental  brushes  for  cleaning  the structure, by the end of the study period the index value increased to 0.95 ± 0.05 points, which corresponded to mild gingivitis of the gums in the area of implants, i.e. there was slight  hyperemia  and  individual  punctate  bleeding  of  the  gums  at  the  probing  sites. Patients of the 3rd group, using an irrigator, had minimal index values at all periods of the study,  and  the  index  values  were  interpreted  as  “normal  gums”,  that  is,  no  signs  of gingivitis were recorded.