The effects of different application techniques and orifices on the amount of dentifrice
1Department of Pediatric Dentistry, Gazi University, Ankara, Turkey
DOI: 10.17796/jcpd.28.4.lx41h477446w35p0 Vol.28,Issue 4,October 2004 pp.343-346
Published: 01 October 2004
The purpose of this study was to evaluate three different methods (ST: Standart technique; PS: Pea-size;
TT:Transverse technique) for dentifrice use in children between 5 to 7 years of age, as well as to compare
the amount of dentifrice dispensed by using tubes with different orifices (moon or round shaped).
One hundered children who dispensed the dentifrice themselves were asked to apply the quantity of
dentifrice they usually used (ST or TT) (Phase-I). In Phase-II, they were instructed to apply a pea-size
amount (PS) and finally they were demonstrated to use the transverse technique (TT) in Phase-III.
Statistical analysis was obtained by using Anova and t-test.
As a result, most of the children (82 patient) preferred to use ST rather than TT (18 patient).
A decrease in the amount was obtained with both of the shaped orifices after the instruction of PS or
demonstration of TT (p< 0.05). It was observed that the amount of dentifrice dispensed decreased
generally when a moon shaped orifice was used.
Olmez Aysegul,Tufekcioglu Dilek,Erdemli Elgin. The effects of different application techniques and orifices on the amount of dentifrice. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2004. 28(4);343-346.
1. DenBesten P. Fluoride levels in whole saliva of preschool children after brushing with 0.25 g (pea-sized) as compared to 1.0 g (full-brush) of a fluoride dentifrice. Pediatr Dent 18: 277-280, 1996.
2. Warren JJ, Levy SM. A review of fluoride dentifrice related to dental fluorosis. Pediatr Dent 21: 265-271, 1999.
3. Beltran ED, Szpunar SM. Fluoride in toothpastes for children: Suggestion for change. Pediatr Dent 3:185-188, 1988.
4. Ripa LW. A critic of topical fluoride methods (dentrifices, mouthrinses, operator-, and self applied gels) in an era of decreased caries and increased fluorosis prevalence. J Public Health Dent 51:23-41, 1991.
5. Bawden JW. Proceedings of the workshop: changing patterns in systemic fluoride intake. J Dent Res 71:1212-1265, 1992.
6. Burt BA. The changing patterns of systemic fluoride intake. J Dent Res 72: 1228-1237, 1992.
7. Levy SWM. A review of fluoride intake from fluoride dentifrice. J Dent Child 60: 115-124, 1993.
8. Levy SM. A review of fluoride exposures and ingestion. Paper presented at the Canadian workshop “Evaluation of Current Recommendation Concerning Fluoride”. Manuscript Submitted to Community Dent Oral Epidemiol, 1992.
9. Villena RS. An investigation of the transverse technique of dentifrice application to reduce the amount of fluoride dentifrice for young children. Pediatr Dent 22: 312-317, 2000.
10. Pendrys DG. Risk of fluorosis in a fluoridated population. J Am Dent Assoc 126: 1617-1624, 1995.
11. Dean AJ, Hughes CV. Mechanical and chemotherapeutic home oral hygiene. In: McDonald RE, Avery DR, editors. Dentistry for child and adolescent. 6 th ed. St. Louis, Baltimore, Boston, Mosby Co, pp.256-282, 1994.
12. Bruun C, Thylstrup A. Dentifrice usage among Danish children. J Dent Res 67: 1114-1117, 1988.
13. Pang DTY, Vann WF. The use of fluoride-containing toothpastes in young children: the scientific evidence for recommending a small quantity. Pediatr Dent 14: 384-386,1992.
14. Akpata ES. Occurence and management of dental fluorosis. Int Dent J 51: 325-333, 2001.
15. Bottenberg P, Declerck D, Martens L. Fluorosis: diagnosis, risk assess-ment and epidemiology. Rev Belge Med Dent 56: 291-309, 2001.
16. Holm AK, Andersson R. Enamel mineralization disturbances in 12-year-old children with know early exposure to fluorides. Comm Dent Oral Epidemiol 10: 335-339, 1982.
17. Woltgens JH, Etty EJ, Nieuwland WM, Lyaruu DM. Use of fluoride by young children and prevalence of mottled enamel. Adv Dent Res 3: 177-182, 1989.
18. Rojas-Sanchez F, Kelly SA, Drake KM, Eckert GJ, Stookey GK, Dunipace AJ. Fluoride intake from foods, beverages and denti-frice by young children in communities with negligibly and opti-mally fluoridated water: a pilot study. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 27: 288-97, 1999.
19. Bartizek RD, Gerlach RW, Faller RV, Jacobs SA, Bollmer BW, Biesbrock AR. Reduction in dental caries with four concentra-tions of sodium fluoride in a dentifrice: a meta analysis evalua-tion. J Clin Dent 12: 57-62, 2001.
20. Biesbrock AR, Gerlach RW, Bollmer BW, Faller RV, Jacobs SA, Bartizek RD. Relative anti-caries efficacy of 1100, 1700, 2200 and 2800 ppm fluoride ion in a sodium fluoride dentifrice over 1 year. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 29: 382-389, 2001.
21. Oulis C, Raadal M, Martens L. Guidelines on the use of fluoride in children: An EAPD policy document. Eur J Pediatr Dent 1: 7-12, 2000.
22. Bloch-Zupan A. Is the fluoride concentration limit of 1,500 ppm in cosmetics (EU Guideline) still up-to-date? Caries Res 35: 22- 25, 2001.
23. Rock WP.Young children and fluoride toothpaste. Br Dent J 177: 17- 20, 1994.
24. Bertley EM., Ellwood RP, Davies RM. Factors influencing the amount of fluoride toothpaste applied by the mothers of young children. Br Dent J 183: 412-414, 1997.
Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch) Created as SCI in 1964, Science Citation Index Expanded now indexes over 9,500 of the world’s most impactful journals across 178 scientific disciplines. More than 53 million records and 1.18 billion cited references date back from 1900 to present.
PubMed (MEDLINE) PubMed comprises more than 35 million citations for biomedical literature from MEDLINE, life science journals, and online books. Citations may include links to full text content from PubMed Central and publisher web sites.
Biological Abstracts Easily discover critical journal coverage of the life sciences with Biological Abstracts, produced by the Web of Science Group, with topics ranging from botany to microbiology to pharmacology. Including BIOSIS indexing and MeSH terms, specialized indexing in Biological Abstracts helps you to discover more accurate, context-sensitive results.
Google Scholar Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text or metadata of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines.
JournalSeek Genamics JournalSeek is the largest completely categorized database of freely available journal information available on the internet. The database presently contains 39226 titles. Journal information includes the description (aims and scope), journal abbreviation, journal homepage link, subject category and ISSN.
Current Contents - Clinical Medicine Current Contents - Clinical Medicine provides easy access to complete tables of contents, abstracts, bibliographic information and all other significant items in recently published issues from over 1,000 leading journals in clinical medicine.
BIOSIS Previews BIOSIS Previews is an English-language, bibliographic database service, with abstracts and citation indexing. It is part of Clarivate Analytics Web of Science suite. BIOSIS Previews indexes data from 1926 to the present.
Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition aims to evaluate a journal’s value from multiple perspectives including the journal impact factor, descriptive data about a journal’s open access content as well as contributing authors, and provide readers a transparent and publisher-neutral data & statistics information about the journal.
Scopus: CiteScore 2.0 (2022) Scopus is Elsevier's abstract and citation database launched in 2004. Scopus covers nearly 36,377 titles (22,794 active titles and 13,583 Inactive titles) from approximately 11,678 publishers, of which 34,346 are peer-reviewed journals in top-level subject fields: life sciences, social sciences, physical sciences and health sciences.