• Users Online: 1569
  • Home
  • Print this page
  • Email this page
Home About us Editorial board Ahead of print Current issue Search Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 


 
 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2017  |  Volume : 17  |  Issue : 3  |  Page : 295-300

A comparative study for plaque removing efficacy between commonly used denture cleansers in India


1 Department of Prosthodontics, Graded Specialist, 200 MDC, Army Dental Corps, Pathankot, Punjab, India
2 Department of Orthodontics, Private Practitioner, Consultant Orthodontist, Pathankot, Punjab, India
3 Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery, Graded Specialist, 200 MDC, Army Dental Corps, Pathankot, Punjab, India
4 Department of Orthodontics, Graded Specialist, 200 MDC, Army Dental Corps, Pathankot, Punjab, India

Date of Submission01-Feb-2017
Date of Acceptance23-Jun-2017
Date of Web Publication10-Aug-2017

Correspondence Address:
Bhushan Kumar
7-A, Manikshaw Colony, Pathankot - 145 001, Punjab
India
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/jips.jips_2_17

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 

Aim: A comparative study for plaque removing efficacy between toothpaste, liquid handwashing soap, and two chemical-soak denture cleansers (clinsodent denture cleansing powder and fittydent denture cleansing tablet).
Materials and Methods: A total of 140 healthy complete denture patients were selected and checked for denture cleansing using toothpaste, liquid handwashing soap, and two chemical denture cleansers: Clinsodent powder and fittydent tablets. Cleansing with plain water was kept as control for twenty patients.
Results: The data were analyzed using Wilcoxon signed ranks test for checking the efficacy. The Kruskal–Wallis test was used for comparing the plaque removing efficacies of each denture cleanser used in the study. All four denture cleansers were significantly effective in removing plaque when compared with plain water, but there was no significant difference among them.
Conclusions: There was no significant difference among action of four denture cleansers used in this study. Thus we can infer that patients can use liquid handwashing soap or commercial products to overcome disadvantages of toothpastes. Recommendation from the results of this study is the use of liquid handwashing soap for cleansing after every meal and soaking of the denture in commercial denture cleanser during the night.

Keywords: Clinsodent powder, denture plaque, fittydent tablet, liquid handwashing soap, tooth brush, toothpaste


How to cite this article:
Kumar B, Sandhu PK, Kumar A N, Patil CP. A comparative study for plaque removing efficacy between commonly used denture cleansers in India. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2017;17:295-300

How to cite this URL:
Kumar B, Sandhu PK, Kumar A N, Patil CP. A comparative study for plaque removing efficacy between commonly used denture cleansers in India. J Indian Prosthodont Soc [serial online] 2017 [cited 2019 Nov 21];17:295-300. Available from: http://www.j-ips.org/text.asp?2017/17/3/295/212736


  Introduction Top


The use of heat cure acrylic resin for denture fabrication is a common procedure; however, it has a micro-porous surface which provides a favorable platform for micro-organisms to organize “denture plaque.” It also acts as a plaque applicator, by holding the plaque in contact with the oral mucosa for extended periods of time, thereby increasing the toxic effects, leading to mucosal abnormalities such as denture stomatitis, chronic candidiasis, and inflammatory papillary hyperplasia,.[1] When this intimate relationship is interrupted; the tissue health improves, and the most common method of controlling this interface is good denture hygiene, which can be achieved with the proper denture cleansing practice.[1]

The term, “denture plaque” has been used throughout the literature. However, the term “plaque on denture” should be used because the microbial flora and its pathogenicity of denture plaque resemble those of plaque formed on the tooth surface, so-called dental plaque. In addition, the term “denture-related stomatitis” would be preferable to “denture-induced stomatitis,” since the inflammation of (palatal) mucosa is not induced by the denture, but by wearing the denture or by plaque on the denture.

For being effective, a denture cleanser must be capable of removing plaque from not only the polished surfaces of prosthesis but more importantly from the unpolished tissue surfaces. Denture cleansers can be broadly divided into mechanical, chemical, and both; based on their mode of action.[2] Toothpaste is most commonly used denture cleanser, but toothpaste may cause damage to acrylic resin making it rough, thus more prone to plaque accumulation. To overcome this drawback, chemical cleansers are frequently advocated by authors. Likewise, in geriatric patients, because of lack of manual dexterity due to age, chemical methods are more advisable.[3]

Prescription/recommendation of specific denture cleanser to the patient is often based on exposure or knowledge of the clinician because there is no laid down protocol for denture hygiene procedure. So, the aim of the conducting this study was to set a denture hygiene practice which operator can explain at the time of denture insertion. Before starting this study, a pilot project was conducted among 80 denture wearers to know what mode of denture cleansing they have adopted and the reason for it. Results showed that 43% people were using toothpaste, 36% liquid handwashing soap, 12% commercially available denture cleansers, 4% dishwashing cake and 5% were cleansing their denture with plain water only. The reason for using toothpaste was their own presumption of cleaning the denture with the same agent, which they used for their natural teeth and only in few cases, it was advised by their dentists; however, liquid handwashing soap was advised mostly by their dentists. Commercial chemical denture cleansing products were prescribed by few dentists only and reason could be less promotion of the product to professionals, less availability for the general public in the Indian market and their high cost.

So keeping in mind all these findings and limitations, this study was designed to compare the plaque removing efficacy between commonly used denture cleansers among the local population and these are toothpaste, liquid handwashing soap and two easily available and cost effective chemical-soak denture cleansers (clinsodent denture cleansing powder and fittydent denture cleansing tablet).


  Materials and Methods Top


All complete denture wearer patients, in the age group of 40–70 years registered with the department records at military dental center were recalled and 160 among them who were fulfilling the inclusion criteria (like well-fitting dentures, minimum 6 months of duration of their use) and exclusion criteria (like lack of systemic disease causing oral manifestations or xerostomia, etc., and manual dexterity because these can alter study results) were selected for the study after obtaining informed consent. Ethical clearance was taken from the concerned local body in Military Hospital, Pathankot (Punjab).

One hundred and forty subjects were included in treatment groups and evaluated with four selected denture cleansers, and twenty subjects (randomly selected) were taken as control baseline group (only plain water was used for denture cleansing).

Denture cleansers used were Tooth Paste (Colgate, Strong Teeth Colgate – Palmolive India Ltd., Bombay), Liquid Hand Washing Soap (Dettol Original), Denture Cleansing Tablets (Fittydent Denture Cleansing Tablets by Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd., Hyderabad), Denture Cleansing Powder (Clinsodent - The Scientific Denture Cleanser, ICPA Health Products Ltd., Aankleshwar). All these agents were used with Soft Denture Brush (STIM Brushes Dent Aids, New Delhi).

Procedure was divided into pretest session and test session.

Pretest session

After completion of necessary adjustments, all the maxillary dentures were ultrasonically (Ultrasonic Cleaner [Citizon] with Solution-UNI 77 RENFERT GMBH, Germany) cleansed for 30 min to perform a uniform baseline. Subjects were informed that they should not remove and clean their denture in any manner for 24 h (for building up of plaque) before all test sessions. They were only allowed to wash their denture in running plain water. Patients were re-called after 24 h for test session.

Test session

One hundred and forty patients were randomly divided into four groups; having 35 patients in each group.

Test regimens were used as scheduled in [Table 1].
Table 1: Denture cleansers were sequentially arranged in different order to prevent bias due to overlapping of action

Click here to view


Methods

At the test session, the maxillary dentures with 1 day accumulated plaque were coded and rinsed in slow running tap water to remove any loose food debris. Tissue surface of maxillary denture was divided into four sections approximately equal in area as shown in [Figure 1]. Plaque disclosing agent (DPI Alpha Plac [Two Tone Disclosing Solution] Dental Products of India Ltd., Bombay) was poured on the tissue surface. After 2 min, it was washed under running tap water for 1 min. Precleansing plaque score was given for each quadrant using modified Quigley-Hein Scale [Table 2]. Test regimens were used for cleansing the denture as scheduled in [Table 1]. The method of use is described in [Table 3]. After cleansing, the disclosing agent was poured for 2 min then it was washed for 1 min in running tap water. Postcleansing score was given for each quadrant. At the end of each session, denture was cleansed in an ultrasonic cleanser for 30 min to maintain baseline for next test session. The patient was recalled after 24 h for next test session after instructing them not to clean their denture.
Figure 1: Tissue surface of maxillary denture is divided into four equal parts

Click here to view
Table 2: Modified Quigley-Hein Scale

Click here to view
Table 3: Methodology of use of different agents used

Click here to view


Plaque scoring

Each quadrant area was considered as 100%. The area covered by disclosed plaque (by using disclosing solution) was visually inspected for giving plaque score. Every quadrant was scored individually then total plaque was obtained for each denture by adding all 4 quadrant scores. So, total readings were 560 for each test groups (140 subject dentures × 4 quadrants in each denture) and 80 for the control group (20 subject dentures × 4 quadrants in each denture). The complete procedure was carried out by a single examiner, but scores were given by two observers. The second observer was explained about methodology and plaque scoring method in advance.


  Results Top


Two observers were included in this study for giving plaque scores to prevent observer bias. The reliability was checked between plaque scores given by observer I and observer II by using Spearmans rank correlation coefficient technique. Reliability factor was more than 94%, so for further calculations, only readings of observer 1 were considered. As successive appointments were given to patients at a shorter interval (24 h) of time, so chances were there for overlapping of action of previously used cleanser. To overcome this bias, total numbers of patients were randomly divided into four groups and all four denture cleansers were used for each denture in every group in different sequences in this study to minimize every kind of bias. To compare between different cleansing agents a uniform baseline is required so precleansing plaque score. Wilcoxon signed ranks test applied on pre- and post-cleansing scores and results showed that there is a significant reduction in plaque when used any of the cleansing agents and even with plain water when used alone (control group) [Graph 1]. The reason for this finding could be the short duration between recall visits which might not be adequate enough for organisation and adherence of the plaque on denture surface; so was easily removed with denture brush without any adjunct. However for finding a comparison between efficacies of different cleansing agents used, first, we need to create a uniform baseline. For that Kruskal–Wallis test was applied on precleansing plaque scores found that difference among their scores was not significant so that we could use their postcleansing scores for comparison. Again, Kruskal–Wallis test was applied (on the difference between post- and pre-cleansing score) to compare the cleansing efficacy and found that there is no significant difference between plaque removing capability of used agents in this study. However, Mann–Whitney test showed that all agents are significantly effective in removing plaque when compared with plain water (control group).




  Discussion Top


Numerous clinical studies have demonstrated the relationship between denture plaque, mucosal inflammation, and denture-induced stomatitis.[1],[2] It is well established that the use of denture cleansers helps control or eliminate these conditions by reducing the amount of plaque residing on denture surfaces.[1] Denture cleansers can be of various types based on their main component like alkaline peroxides, alkaline hypochlorite, acids, disinfectants, enzymes, etc.[2]

Tooth paste is most commonly used the product for cleansing natural teeth. With that psychology, easy availability and cost effectiveness, toothpaste is commonly used by patients to clean their denture.[4] Even in the pilot study, done before this present study showed that it is most commonly followed method by patients (by 43%). Although various authors have claimed that brushing with toothpaste may cause damage to the acrylic resin.[5] However, brushing with a low abrasive paste like pumice is quite effective in removal of the plaque deposits and has a polishing effect on the denture surface, which in turn would render the denture less subject to plaque reaccumulation,[6] but its use requires powered buff and is not user-friendly. This study showed toothpaste equally effective to chemical cleansers; However, this observation does not support the findings of Dills et al.[4] where they found soaking denture cleanser more effective in reducing plaque than denture paste. In contrary, Tarbet et al.[6] and Abelson[2] found paste to be more effective than soak type denture cleanser.

Liquid handwashing soap is second most commonly used denture cleansing product in plot study data (36%) and is advised by dentist in most of the cases however, use is not documented in clinical studies. Results of this study proved it a safe, quick, and excellent denture cleansing alternative toothpaste. Although, commercial denture cleansing products are advocated in most of the clinical trials but there are two distinct shortcomings of their use. First, these are expensive for regular use and the other being difficulty in the procurement everywhere in the Indian market. Twelve percent of patients in our pilot study were using chemical denture cleansers. Chemical cleansers chosen in this study are not expensive and are easily available in the market. On very first appointment maxillary dentures were cleansed with ultrasonic to create a uniform baseline as Abelson[2] compared the ultrasonic technique with soak type tablets and found the former 2.5 times more effective. Patients were instructed for not removing and cleansing their dentures for 24 h before test session to allow building up of plaque. They were allowed to rinse their dentures in water only, to prevent discomfort.[5],[7],[8] As same person was supposed to come for five appointments so chances were there for drop out of patients so prior consent, proper explanation of study and good motivation to the patients was ensured. Many in vivo studies have advocated a gap of 3 days for adequate building up of plaque and to minimize overlapping effect of previous cleanser used.[2],[6],[9],[10] To overcome this bias, each denture was cleansed with all four cleanser and in different sequences in all four groups [Table 2]. Two tone dye solution was used to disclose the plaque for plaque scoring.[9] Visual plaque scoring method was used as Sheen and Harrison reported that there is no significant difference between digital imaging and visual scoring method.[11] Results also showed that there was no statistically significant change in plaque reduction ability of individual cleanser after changing the sequence of use. To avoid the observer bias, two clinicians (observers) were chosen and standardized. Maxillary denture was taken because of its large surface area. Only impression surface was included in this study, as tongue and cheek movements have cleansing action on polished surfaces and most of mucosal changes are because of plaque adhered on impression surface.[12] During normal use of chemical cleansers, patients soak their dentures for overnight. To get the same action in short time we need to increase the temperature up to 45°C for 12 min[4],[5],[7],[8],[9],[10],[13] and this temperature do not change properties of heat cure acrylic resin, so was safe. For toothpaste 15 mm length was taken as same was used by other authors.[14],[15],[16] Liquid handwashing soap showed excellent cleansing equivalent to chemical cleansers but is not reported in literature. These mild soaps are harmless for denture surfaces, easily available and cost effective. Even plain water was able to reduce plaque because time given was 24 h between successive visits which is insufficient for organisation, calcification and firmly adhesion of plaque on denture surface. For organized plaque commercial denture cleansers are quite effective in reduction of microorganism which otherwise can cause oral manifestation if remain in contact with mucosa.[17],[18],[19]


  Conclusions Top


Brushing alone with a soft toothbrush and plain water could not clean the denture effectively so use of denture cleansers in mandatory. As toothpaste causes denture roughness with time so its use is not advised even though it is excellent cleanser. Chemical cleansers (either clinsodent powder or fittydent tablets) can be used for significant removal of accumulated denture plaque but adequate soaking time or recommended temperature is needed for proper action which is not possible every time each day except night time. This study concludes that washing dentures with liquid handwashing soap after every meal or during day time is most convenient way followed by soaking dentures overnight in chemical cleansers. Even if patient is inaccessible to any of the cleansing product then for that situation washing thoroughly with plain water is also useful, but it should not be a routine practice. Further microbiological studies are needed to support these results.

Financial support and sponsorship

Nil.

Conflicts of interest

There are no conflicts of interest.

 
  References Top

1.
Suresan V, Mantri S, Deogade S, Sumathi K, Panday P, Galav A, et al. Denture hygiene knowledge, attitudes, and practices toward patient education in denture care among dental practitioners of Jabalpur city, Madhya Pradesh, India. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2016;16:30-5.  Back to cited text no. 1
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
2.
Abelson DC. Denture plaque and denture cleansers. J Prosthet Dent 1981;45:376-9.  Back to cited text no. 2
[PUBMED]    
3.
Shay K. Denture hygiene: A review and update. J Contemp Dent Pract 2000;1:28-41.  Back to cited text no. 3
[PUBMED]    
4.
Dills SS, Olshan AM, Goldner S, Brogdon C. Comparison of the antimicrobial capability of an abrasive paste and chemical-soak denture cleaners. J Prosthet Dent 1988;60:467-70.  Back to cited text no. 4
[PUBMED]    
5.
Porwal A, Khandelwal M, Punia V, Sharma V. Effect of denture cleansers on color stability, surface roughness, and hardness of different denture base resins. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2017;17:61-7.  Back to cited text no. 5
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
6.
Tarbet WJ, Axelrod S, Minkoff S, Fratarcangelo PA. Denture cleansing: A comparison of two methods. J Prosthet Dent 1984;51:322-5.  Back to cited text no. 6
[PUBMED]    
7.
Augsburger RH, Elahi JM. Evaluation of seven proprietary denture cleansers. J Prosthet Dent 1982;47:356-9.  Back to cited text no. 7
[PUBMED]    
8.
Joseph RM. Comparison of efficacy of sodium hypochlorite with sodium perborate in the removal of stains from heat cured clear acrylic resin. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2009;9:6-12.  Back to cited text no. 8
  [Full text]  
9.
Makhija PP, Shigli K, Awinashe V. Evaluating the efficacy of denture cleansing materials in removal of tea and turmeric stains: An in vitro study. Indian J Dent Res 2016;27:528-34.  Back to cited text no. 9
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
10.
Saha A, Dutta S, Varghese RK, Kharsan V, Agrawal A. A survey assessing modes of maintaining denture hygiene among elderly patients. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent 2014;4:145-8.  Back to cited text no. 10
[PUBMED]    
11.
Sheen SR, Harrison A. Assessment of plaque prevention on dentures using an experimental cleanser. J Prosthet Dent 2000;84:594-601.  Back to cited text no. 11
[PUBMED]    
12.
Keng SB, Lim M. Denture plaque distribution and the effectiveness of a perborate-containing denture cleanser. Quintessence Int 1996;27:341-5.  Back to cited text no. 12
[PUBMED]    
13.
Odman PA. The effectiveness of an enzyme-containing denture cleanser. Quintessence Int 1992;23:187-90.  Back to cited text no. 13
[PUBMED]    
14.
Margo. Evaluation of three common denture cleansers. Ann Dent Univ Malaya 2003;10:38-42.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.
Jeyapalan K, Kumar JK, Azhagarasan NS. Comparative evaluation of the effect of denture cleansers on the surface topography of denture base materials: An in-vitro study. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 2015;7 Suppl 2:S548-53.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.
Kumar MN, Thippeswamy HM, Raghavendra Swamy KN, Gujjari AK Efficacy of commercial and household denture cleansers against Candida albicans adherent to acrylic denture base resin: An in vitro study. Indian J Dent Res 2012;23:39-42.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.
Shah VR, Shah DN, Chauhan CJ, Doshi PJ, Kumar A. Evaluation of flexural strength and color stability of different denture base materials including flexible material after using different denture cleansers. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2015;15:367-73.  Back to cited text no. 17
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  
18.
Dua A, Sukanya, Kashinath KR, Sandhya. A comparative in-vitro microbiological study to evaluate the penetration by Candida albicans of different heat cure acrylic resins after denture brush abrasion. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2008;8:207-12.  Back to cited text no. 18
  [Full text]  
19.
Prakash B, Shekar M, Maiti B, Karunasagar I, Padiyath S. Prevalence of Candida spp. among healthy denture and nondenture wearers with respect to hygiene and age. J Indian Prosthodont Soc 2015;15:29-32.  Back to cited text no. 19
[PUBMED]  [Full text]  


    Figures

  [Figure 1]
 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1], [Table 2], [Table 3]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Me...
Results
Discussion
Conclusions
References
Article Figures
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed1439    
    Printed9    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded195    
    Comments [Add]    

Recommend this journal


[TAG2]
[TAG3]
[TAG4]