• Produits et services
  • Santé du patient
  • Solutions pratiques
  • Ressources et éducation
  • Commander des produits
  • À propos de nous

Interdentaire

Plaque removal

In-vitro comparison of area of plaque removal by Philips Sonicare Quad Stream nozzle versus Waterpik Classic Jet nozzle

Par Philips

22-01-01

4-5 min de lecture

Image of power flosser

Gottenbos B, Balakrishnan A Philips Research, NL; Philips Oral Healthcare, USA Study completed in 2021

survol

  • Objective
  • Methodology
  • Results
  • Conclusions

Objective

The objective of this in-vitro study was to compare the area of plaque removal by Philips Sonicare Quad Stream and Waterpik Classic Jet nozzles, when used per the directions for use (DFU) instructions for both devices.

Methodology

Streptococcus mutans biofilms were cultured for 40 hours in 3% sucrose medium on four different half-tooth samples in the 2 molar subgingival model (with artificial soft tissue). Samples were imaged on microscope imaging system before and after cleaning treatment. Some samples were also imaged using optical coherence tomography (OCT). Philips Sonicare Power Flosser was operated using the Quad Stream nozzle while Waterpik 660 was operated using the Classic Jet nozzle. Treatment times for both nozzles were normalized to one second per tooth (buccal and lingual) along the gingival margin, equivalent to 60 seconds for a full mouth. The treatments were performed per the directions for use (DFU) for both nozzle types.

Results

The results after the treatment with the Philips Sonicare Quad Stream and the Waterpik Classic Jet nozzles are shown in Figure 1. The mean % area of plaque removal by the Philips Sonicare Quad Stream nozzle was 85% while that by the Waterpik Classic Jet nozzle was 9%. Philips Sonicare Quad Stream nozzle covers up to nine times (85/9=~9X) the area covered by Waterpik Classic Jet nozzle, when tested per DFU. Philips Sonicare Quad Stream nozzle covers up to eight times more ((85- 9)/(9)=~8.4) area than that covered by Waterpik Classic Jet nozzle.

Conclusions

The in-vitro plaque removal area coverage by Philips Sonicare Quad Stream nozzle when used with the Sonicare Power Flosser was eight times more than that of the Waterpik Classic Jet nozzle used with the Waterpik-660. Philips Sonicare Power Flosser Quad Stream nozzle performs nine times as efficiently as Waterpik 660 in relation to plaque removal surface area coverage.

Figure 1

Chart of mean % plaque biofilm area removed

© 2022 Koninklijke Philips N.V. (KPNV ). All rights reserved. PHILIPS and the Philips shield are trademarks of KPNV. SONICARE and the Sonicare logo are trademarks of KPNV.

Data on file - D000864604(2)

PDF

Download the abstract

Download (254.0KB)

Restez informé des dernières actualités

Inscrivez-vous pour rester informé(e) et recevoir nos dernières actualité et informations scientifiques sur la santé bucco-dentaire à destination des professionnels.

Je souhaite recevoir des communications électroniques marketing concernant les produits, services, événements et promotions Philips susceptibles de m’intéresser en fonction de mes préférences et de mon comportement. Je peux retirer mon consentement à tout moment.

In-vitro comparison of area of plaque removal by Philips Sonicare Quad Stream nozzle versus Waterpik Classic Jet nozzle | Philips