J Korean Acad Oral Health.  2023 Mar;47(1):21-25. 10.11149/jkaoh.2023.47.1.21.

Comparison of interdental brush size and label information marketed in Korea

• Cho YJ
• Byon MJ
• Jun EJ
• Kang SM
• Jeong SH

• KMID: 2541087
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.11149/jkaoh.2023.47.1.21

Abstract

Objectives
This study compares the labeling information on the sizes of interdental brushes marketed in Korea to their actual sizes. Moreover, it analyzes the relationship between the size of the passage hole diameter (PHD), brush diameter, stem diameter, and stem length.
Methods
Among the commercially available interdental brushes in Korea, 171 interdental brushes, 3 in each size, were collected from 9 companies. The labels of the collected interdental brushes were researched, and the PHD was measured and compared. The correlation between the passage hole diameter, brush diameter, stem diameter, and stem length was analyzed. Multiple regression analysis was performed to verify the effect of brush diameter, stem diameter, and stem length on the determination of the PHD.
Results
The sizes of the interdental brushes were expressed using the ISO labeling or the Small, Medium, Large (S, M, L) labeling and indicated in units of 0.1. The concordance rate of the measured PHD and named PHD was 39.7%. The measured brush diameter, stem diameter, and stem length increased as the interdental brush size increased. There was a significant correlation (P<0.01) between PHD, brush diameter, stem diameter, and stem length. The order of variables with the most to least significant influence on PHD was stem diameter (β=0.528), brush diameter (β=0.404), and stem length (β=0.074).
Conclusions
This study shows that the label and actual size of interdental brushes did not match, and the concordance rate between the measured and labeled PHDs was low. Therefore, the interdental brush size labels among manufacturers should be standardized. Moreover, these manufacturers must provide the correct size information for the interdental brushes.

Keyword

Interdental brush; Interdental brush size; Interdental brush standard; Passage hole diameter

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1 Measuring plate of passage hole diameter (PHD) & measuring method of PHD.

• 

  Fig. 2 Measuring method of brush diameter, stem diameter, stem length.

• 

  Fig. 3 The number of matches between labeled PHD and measured PHD & concordance rate.

Reference

References

1. Schmid MD, Balmelli OP, Soxer UP. 1976; Plaque-removing effect of a tooth brush, dental floss and tooth pick. J Clin Periodontology. 3(3):157–165. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.1976.tb01863.x. PMID: 1067277.

2. Kim SA, Kim KS, Kim MY. 2016. Comtemporary Preventive Dentistry 2th ed. 2th ed. Daehannarae publishing Inc;Seoul: p. 54–83.

3. Slot DE, Wiggelinkhuizen L, Rosema NA, Van der Weijden GA. 2012; The efficacy of manual toothbrushes following a brushing exercise: a systematic review. International Journal of Dental Hygiene. 10(3):187–197. DOI: 10.1111/j.1601-5037.2012.00557.x. PMID: 22672101.

4. Gallie A. 2019; Home use of interdental cleaning devices and toothbrushing and their role in disease prevention. Evidence-based dentistry. 20(4):103–104. DOI: 10.1038/s41432-019-0069-7. PMID: 31863041.

5. Worthington HV, MacDonald L, Poklepovic Pericic T, Sambunjak D, Johnson TM, Imai P, Clarkson JE. 2019; Home use of interdental cleaning devices, in addition to toothbrushing, for preventing and controlling periodontal diseases and dental caries. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 4(4):DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012018.pub2. PMID: 30968949. PMCID: PMC6953268.

6. Slot DE, Dörfer CE, van der Weijden GA. 2008; The efficacy of interdental brushes on plaque and parameters of periodontal inflammation: a systematic review. International Journal of Dental Hygiene. 6(4):253–264. DOI: 10.1111/j.1601-5037.2008.00330.x. PMID: 19138177.

7. Poklepovic T, Worthington HV, Johnson TM, Sambunjak D, Imai P, Clarkson JE, et al. 2013; Interdental brushing for the prevention and control of periodontal diseases and dental caries in adults. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 12:CD009857. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009857.pub2. PMID: 24353078.

8. Addy M. 2008; Oral hygiene products: potential for harm to oral and systemic health? Periodontology 2000. 48:54–65. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0757.2008.00253.x. PMID: 18715356.

9. Kim BI, Kwon HK, Kim YS, Kim HE, Rho HJ, Min JH, et al. 2016. Textbook of oral care products. 2nd ed. 2:Charmyun publishing Inc;Seoul: p. 84–84.

10. Claydon NC. 2008; Current concepts in toothbrushing and interdental cleaning. Periodontology 2000. 48:10–22. DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0757.2008.00273.x. PMID: 18715352.

11. 2016. International Standard ISO16409:2016 Dentistry-Oral care products-Manual interdental brushes. ISO;Geneva,Switzerland: p. 12. DOI: 10.3403/30298572.

12. Turner C. 2022; Interdental brushes and ISO standards. Br Dent J. 232(11):761–762. DOI: 10.1038/s41415-022-4360-1. PMID: 35689041.

13. Hotta M, Takitani Y, Nagai K, Sekine I. 2002; Indicated size of interdental brushes. The journal of Gifu Dental Society. 29(2):91–95.

14. Kaushik A. 2022; Passage hole diameter. Br Dent J. 233(1):5–5. DOI: 10.1038/s41415-022-4470-9. PMID: 35804107.

15. Staehle HJ, Frese C, Sekundo C. 2021; Mechanical plaque control of the interdental space with the "heidelberg set". Quintessence Int. 52(2):176–186. DOI: 10.3290/j.qi.b872241. PMID: 33433083.

16. Sekundo C, Staehle HJ. 2020; Mapping the product range of interdental brushes: sizes, shapes, and forces. Oral Health Prev Dent. 18(1):343–354. DOI: 10.3290/j.ohpd.a44035. PMID: 32618458.