Oral Health and Preventive Dentistry, Volume 23/2025

Purpose: To trace the history of interdental brushes (IDBs) from their origins to the present, highlighting their development and future prospects compared to other interdental hygiene aids. Methods and Materials: A literature search using digital databases, manual reviews and on-site research in museums were carried out. Results: Although extensive literature exists on toothbrushes, flosses and toothpicks, there has been no comprehensive study of IDBs. Twisted brushes for oral hygiene were mentioned as ear-ly as the late 19th century. The exact origins of their use in interdental spaces remain unclear, but evidence narrows it to the early 20th century. IDBs have been in documented use since at least 1960, with publications emerging in the 1970s. Historically, evaluations of IDBs have been mixed, balancing high expectations with scepticism regarding efficacy and safety. By the early 21st century, IDBs were often considered superior for interdental cleaning. Advances included modifications in brush head designs, handle types, and the establishment of standards like ISO 16409, though these did not always facilitate proper selection and use. Conclusion: Recent literature still highlights limited evidence-based statements on IDB efficacy, with some questioning their superiority over other aids like dental floss. Consumer-friendly alternatives, such as rubber picks, are sometimes rated higher, however, without allowing for a final assessment. For IDBs to meet the standards of Frugal Dentistry, they must improve oral health, be widely demanded, and cost-effective. Future research should provide more precise indications for IDBs and scientifically sound recommendations for various sizes and designs, ensuring they are easy to use and effective for different interdental spaces. Keywords: historical milestones of interdental brushes, interdental cleaning, developments in interdental brushes, future indications for interdental brushes

Purpose: To examine the alterations in oral healthcare indicators subsequent to the administration of cetylpyridinium chloride. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study, clinical data of 58 patients who received orthodontic treatment using removable appliances at our medical facility were collected. Patients were divided into two groups based on whether they used cetylpyridinium chloride during orthodontic treatment: the combined group (n = 31, received 0.1% cetylpyridinium chloride gargle in addition to periodontal cleaning during the use of orthodontic appliances, with gargling applied three times daily for at least 1 min after meals) and the cleaning group (n = 27, received only periodontal cleaning). Data on oral healthcare were collected and analysed at 1, 3, and 6 months into the treatment regimen. The indices evaluated were gingival index (GI), sulcus bleeding index (SBI), probing depth (PD), and plaque index (PLI). Results: Subsequent evaluations revealed that, at 3 and 6 months post-intervention, patients in the intervention group exhibited statistically lower scores in GI, SBI, and PLI when compared to the control group. Similarly, the PD measurements showed more statistically significant reductions at each follow-up interval — 1, 3, and 6 months — in the intervention group. IL-10 levels were notably higher in the intervention group at 6 months. Conclusion: Integrating cetylpyridinium chloride into the oral healthcare regimen for patients using removable orthodontic appliances has been shown to statistically significantly improve oral health, enhance periodontal functions, and reduce inflammatory responses in the gingival sulcus. Keywords: cetylpyridinium chloride, inflammatory cytokines, oral healthcare, removable orthodontic appliance

Purpose: Although fluoride is known to be effective and safe, an increasing number of parents refuse to allow fluoride applications for their children. This study aimed to compare the parents who accepted and rejected fluoride application for their children in terms of their attitudes toward fluoride and vaccinations, sociodemographic characteristics, and source of knowledge. Materials and Methods: In this cross-sectional study, a previously validated questionnaire was administered to 85 parents who did not consent to have topical fluoride applied to their children’s teeth (AF group) and the 143 parents who consented to have it applied (F group) in a pediatric dentistry clinic. Data were analysed using the independent t-test and chi-squared test. Results: In the F group, the number of those who disagreed with the statement that fluoride causes intellectual disability, autism, and damages the pineal gland was statistically significantly higher than in the AF group (p 0.05). The most common source of information for the AF group was the internet/social media (67.06%), while for the F group, it was dentists/medical doctors (62.24%). More parents in the F group stated that childhood and Covid-19 vaccinations must be performed; this was a statistically significant difference (p 0.05). Conclusion: No relationship was found between fluoride hesitancy and the educational level of the parents. Most parents in the AF group have doubts and concerns about fluoride rather than being strongly opposed to it. Therefore, educational programs given to parents are likely to have a positive effect on their acquisition of correct information.