The results of this study were as follows: Rotary type (1 open - DENTAL TWIST) and reciprocating type (4 open mouth) interdental toothbrushes were used to search for effective tooth surface bacteria management using an interdental toothbrush. The artificial tooth surface coloring agent was applied to the centrifugal surface and # 47 mesial surface, and the corresponding part of the manufacturer was reciprocated three times for 6 times to remove the bacterial membrane on the artificial tooth surface.
The residual artificial tooth surface state was observed with a digital camera. After analysis, the residual area was measured and the results were compared with each other. The following conclusions were obtained.

1. Five toothbrushes of 0.7mm size When the dental twist by 42.52% of reciprocating motion by company, the effect of removing the bacteria membrane was highest (p <0.001).

2. The dental twist, which is a rotating interdental toothbrush, showed 42.52% in 3 stroke and 29.72% in 6 stroke in the case of # 47, and the dental twist had a higher rate of removal of the bacterial membrane when the reciprocating motion was not performed (p <0.001).

3. The reciprocating motion type E showed a higher rate of removal of the bacterial membrane at the time of # 47 (25.06% in the case of 3 strokes) and 28.52% in the case of 6 strokes (p <0.001).

4. It is recommended to use an interdental toothbrush anywhere between the teeth and gums. In particular, a rotary type interdental toothbrush is most effective for removing the gingiva between the interdental spaces and the teeth that are not removed by self rotation, It will contribute to improvement of oral health care ability by oral hygiene products.

5. The interdental toothbrush should know exactly the size and method, so it is best to use the toothbrush by taking the prescription of the specialist or the instruction of the manufacturer.

Removal rate of bacterial membrane on tooth surface

References
1. Lee Young Hye, Moon Hyuk Soo, Bae Dae Il, Kim Jong Bae. A Study on the Actual Condition of Oral Health in Seoul. Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery 2000; 24 (3): 239-254.

2. Kim Jong-bae, Choi Yoo-jin, Moon Hyuk-soo and others. Public Oral Health. Fourth Edition. Seoul. Gentleman. 2000.

3. Seo Eun-Ju, Shin Seung-chul, Se Hyun-suk, Kim Eun-joo, and Chang Yeon-soo. A Survey on the Use of Oral Hygiene Products by Koreans. Korean Journal of Oral Health 2003; 27 (2): 177-193.

4. Kim Jong-bae, Choi Yoo-jin, Bae Dae-il and five others. Preventive dentistry. Third Edition. Seoul. Gentleman. 1999.

5. Darby ML, Walsh MM. Dental hygiene theory and practice. 2nd. Missouri: Saunders; 2003: 360.

6. Warren PR, Chater BV. An overview of established interdental cleaning methods. J Clin Dent. 1996; 7 (3 Spec No): 65-69.

However, Preventive dentistry. Seoul. Gentleman. 2016.

8. Balenseifen JW and Madonia JV.study ofdentalplaque in orthodontic patients. J DentRes 1970; 49: 320-24.

9. kinger RD, nylund k, feller RP. 1991. & quot; A comparison of proximal plaque removal using floss and interdental brushes & quot; 18 (9): 681-684.

10. Lee Jae Ae. A Study on the Removal Effect of Biodegradable Membranes on the Orthodontic and Orthodontic Parts of Orthodontic Appliances, Dankook University Masters Degree. 2007.