Comparison of manual and power toothbrushing, with and without adjunctive oral irrigation, for controlling plaque and gingivitis

Effectiveness of subgingival irrigation and powered toothbrush as home care maintenance protocol in type 2 diabetic patients with active periodontal disease: A 4-month randomized controlled trial

Background

There is a bidirectional link between diabetes and periodontal disease. Control of active periodontal infection is an essential requisite to maintain optimal oral and systemic health in diabetic patients. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of subgingival irrigation and powered toothbrush as home care maintenance protocol in type 2 diabetic patients with active periodontal disease compared to routine oral hygiene.

Materials and Methods

Forty (n = 40) diabetic (HbA1c >7%) patients were enrolled in this parallel, examiner-blind, interventional clinical trial. Patients were randomized into two groups: Group A (sonic toothbrush and irrigation with water twice daily) or Group B (manual toothbrush and mouth rinsing with 0.12% Chlorhexidine gluconate (CHX) twice daily)). All patients received Phase I therapybefore the start of the study. Clinical parameters (plaque index [PI], gingival index [GI], oral hygiene index [OHI], pocket depth [PD], clinical attachment level [CAL], and bleeding index [BI]) were assessed at baseline, 1, 2, and 4 months. Levels of C-reactive protein (CRP), HbA1c, and interleukin (IL)-1 β were assessed at baseline and 4 months only. Verbal and written instructions were provided to each subject specific to their intervention allocation. Descriptive, parametric, and nonparametric analyses were used where appropriate.

Results

Sixteen (n = 16) patients in Group A and fifteen (n = 15) patients in Group B completed the 4-month study. Both groups showed a significant difference in BI, PD, CAL, and HbA1c from baseline to 4 months. There were no differences within groups for OHI, GI, or PI and CRP, IL-1 β. The results are based on an underpowered study due to the drop out of 9 patients reducing the number below the needed 19 patients per group based on the power analysis.

Conclusion

Results from this study provide information for future studies on self-care regimens for individuals living with Type 2 diabetes.

Safety and Efficacy of Plaque Removal Using Manual and Powered Toothbrush in Cerebral Palsy Children by Parents/Caregivers: A Randomized Control Crossover Trial

Aim

The aim of our study was to check the safety and efficacy of plaque removal using manual and powered toothbrush in cerebral palsy children by parents/caregivers.

Materials and methods

This was a single blinded, crossover randomized control trial conducted on 60 cerebral palsy children between the age of 6 to 14 years. They were randomly divided using a flip coin method into two groups: group A-manual toothbrush and group B-powered toothbrush. The plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), and gingival abrasion (GA) score were measured at baseline, then at an interval of 3, 6, 9, and 12 weeks. This was followed by a crossover between two groups with a washout period of 1 week.

Results

Both manual and powered toothbrush showed a significant reduction in plaque and gingival score before and after crossover when compared to baseline (p < 0.05). The GA score was reduced to 100% in both groups. However, there was no statistically significant difference between both the groups before and after the crossover. Also, through the questionnaire it was observed that both child (86.6%) and parent (70%) showed positive feedback towards powered toothbrush.

Conclusion

It can be concluded from the present study that the efficacy of a powered toothbrush is comparable to that of a manual toothbrush. Parents and caregivers, on the contrary, displayed a favorable attitude towards the use of powered toothbrushes due to their ease of use.

Clinical relevance

Cerebral palsy is one of the most common neurological disorders among children. It is associated with poor motor skills and manual dexterity that hampers their ability to brush and thus leads to poor oral hygiene. A powered toothbrush seems more appealing and is specially designed for patients with poor neuromotor coordination.

How to cite this article

Deshpande AN, Naik K, Deshpande N, et al. Safety and Efficacy of Plaque Removal using Manual and Powered Toothbrush in Cerebral Palsy Children by Parents/Caregivers: A Randomized Control Crossover Trial. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2023;16(2):344-349.

The Efficacy and Safety of Oral Irrigator on the Control of Dental Plaque and Gingivitis: A Randomized, Single-Blind, Parallel-Group Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of oral irrigator (OI) in controlling dental plaque and gingivitis.

METHODS

Ninety participants diagnosed with gingivitis were randomly assigned to two groups, given a toothbrush combined with OI (WaterPik®) (test) or a toothbrush alone (control). The Turesky-Modified Quigley-Hein Plaque Index (T-QH), Modified Gingival Index (MGI), Bleeding Index (BI), and percentage of sites with bleeding on probing (BOP%) were evaluated at baseline, 4 weeks, 8 weeks, and 12 weeks. The full analysis set (FAS) and per-protocol set (PPS) were analyzed. Adverse events were recorded through electronic diaries and examinations.

RESULTS

Of the 90 participants, the efficacy was assessed in the following numbers (FAS/PPS): test (45/33) and control (43/38). Compared with the control, MGI, BI, and BOP% were significantly lower in the test group after 4 weeks (4 weeks: p = 0.017, p = 0.001, and p = 0.001, respectively; 8 weeks and 12 weeks: p < 0.001 for all, FAS); T-QH was significantly lower after 8 weeks (8 weeks: p = 0.033; 12 weeks: p = 0.006, FAS). Transient gingival bleeding may be associated with OI. Self-reported pain and dentin hypersensitivity symptoms were similar between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

As adjuncts to toothbrushing, OI demonstrated significantly better efficacy in controlling dental plaque and gingival inflammation with no substantial safety hazards.

Efficacy of power-driven interdental cleaning tools: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To summarize the available evidence on the efficacy of power-driven interdental cleaning tools (PDICTs) as an adjunct to tooth brushing compared to tooth brushing alone or tooth brushing combined with any other non-PDICT in terms of interproximal plaque and gingival bleeding reduction in gingivitis patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in three databases until March 20, 2022 with the following main eligibility criteria: (1) randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) with (2) at least 28 days of follow-up in (3) gingivitis patients. Interproximal plaque and bleeding values were defined as the primary outcome variables and used for pair-wise meta-analyses.

RESULTS

Sixteen RCTs were identified including data from 1258 participants at the final evaluation. Eight studies each investigated the effect of either a liquid-based or mechanical PDICT; one of these studies tested additionally a combined liquid-based and mechanical PDICT. Tooth brushing combined with a liquid-based PDICT compared to tooth brushing alone did not result in better interproximal plaque values but in significantly lower interproximal bleeding values. Tooth brushing combined with either a liquid-based PDICT or with a mechanical PDICT compared to tooth brushing and flossing achieved comparable interproximal plaque and bleeding values. The majority of studies reporting on patient compliance/preference favored the use of a PDICT, and except for a single study, which was reporting soft tissue trauma in two subjects from improper use of a mechanical PDICT, none of the studies reported adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Daily use of PDICT as an adjunct to tooth brushing significantly reduces interproximal bleeding. This effect appears comparable to that of flossing, while PDICT may achieve higher patient acceptance/compliance.

Effects of interactive power toothbrush with or without application assistance on the plaque, gingivitis, and gingival abrasion among dental students: a randomized controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this randomized controlled study is to determine if an interactive power toothbrush (PTB) with application (app) promotes additional benefit on dental plaque, gingivitis, and gingival abrasion to that of a manual toothbrush (MTB).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ninety participants (dental students) diagnosed with gingivitis were randomly assigned, into three groups, 1:1:1 ratio, given an app-assisted interactive PTB (PTB-A) (Oral-B Genius® Rechargeable 8000 PTB with CrossAction brush head) or the same PTB without app-assistance (PTB-NA) or a regular MTB for home-use. Plaque was assessed using the Turesky modification of the Quigley and Hein Plaque Index (QHPI-TM), and gingivitis was evaluated using the Bleeding on Marginal Probing Index (BOMP) at baseline (T0), week 2 (T1), and week 8 (T2). Gingival abrasions were recorded at T1 and T2. Exit survey was used to assess brushing time and visual-analogue-scale (VAS) scores.

RESULTS

PTB improved QHPI-TM significantly in terms of time-dependent changes, irrespective of app-assistance. BOMP was observed to be statistically lower in PTB-A than in MTB only at T2. Brushing times were longer in PTB-A than in MTB. Gingival abrasion was less in both PTB than MTB. PTB-A had better results to MTB in cleaning ability according to subject-reported outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

Both PTBs were more effective to MTB; however, the app-assisted interactive PTB was similar to the non-assisted one in plaque removal efficacy, gingivitis reduction, and incidence of gingival abrasion, yet better than MTB in cleaning ability.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Developing an application software to prevent gingival abrasion might be clinically beneficial regardless of the individual factor.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrial.gov ID: NCT05150132.

Clinical and biochemical evaluation of oral irrigation in patients with peri-implant mucositis: a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

This randomized clinical trial aimed to compare the efficacy of an oral irrigator and an interdental brush in patients with peri-implant mucositis clinically and biochemically at different time points (at baseline and at the 2nd, 4th, and 12th weeks).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Forty-five patients with at least one implant with peri-implant mucositis were included in the present study (n = 45). The patients were divided into three groups: oral irrigator + toothbrush (OI group, n = 15), interdental brush + toothbrush (IB group, n = 15), and toothbrush only (control) (C group, n = 15). The modified plaque index (mPlI), modified sulcus bleeding index (mSBI), probing pocket depth (PPD), probing attachment level (PAL), and bleeding on probing (BOP) were recorded at baseline and at the 2nd, 4th, and 12th weeks. The levels of interleukin 1 beta (IL-1β), transforming growth factor-beta (TGF-β), tissue-type plasminogen activator (t-PA), and plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (PAI-1) were also determined in the peri-implant crevicular fluid samples biochemically.

RESULTS

The mSBI and t-PA at the 2nd week (p = 0.003; p = 0.003); the mPlI, mSBI, BOP, t-PA, and PAI-1 at the 4th week (p < 0.05; p < 0.001; p < 0.001; p = 0.015; p = 0.011); and the mPlI, mSBI, IL-1β, t-PA, and PAI-1 at the 12th week (p < 0.05; p < 0.001; p = 0.013; p < 0.001; p = 0.002) were significantly lower in the OI group compared with those in the C group. Meanwhile, PAI-1 at the 2nd week, mSBI at the 4th week, and t-PA at the 12th week were significantly lower in the OI group compared with those in the IB group (p < 0.001; p = 0.011; p = 0.003). At the 2nd, 4th, and 12th weeks, all other parameters were not statistically different in the three groups.

CONCLUSION

The clinical indexes (such as mSBI and BOP) that play an important role in the diagnosis of peri-implant mucositis showed the lowest means (although limited) in the OI group at all evaluation time points. Moreover, when the clinical and biochemistry results were interpreted altogether, it became apparent that the OI group exhibited similar or more effective results than the IB group in resolving peri-implant mucositis. In light of the foregoing, this study concluded that the use of an oral irrigator can be as effective as an interdental brush in interdental cleaning.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

In this study, it is suggested that the regular use of an oral irrigator along with a toothbrush could be an appropriate alternative to other oral hygiene products such as dental floss and interdental brush for the management of peri-implant mucositis by preventing the accumulation of dental plaque (NCT03844035).

Comparative efficacy of different varieties of toothbrushes in plaque control: A 12-week clinical trial

Aim

The aim of this 12 week, single-blind clinical trial was to compare the efficacy of Manual (Oral-B Pro Health Gum care^®), Powered (Oral-B Cross action Power Dual^®) and Charcoal (Colgate slim Soft Charcoal^®) toothbrushes in plaque control.

Materials and Methods

60 systemically healthy students were selected at random among the students of a Dental College, living under similar environment and dietary conditions. Plaque and calculus were removed professionally and three varieties of toothbrush were distributed among them. Plaque index (PI), sulcus bleeding index (SBI) and gingival index (GI) were assessed at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 weeks. Assessment of colony forming units (CFU) was done at baseline and 12^th week. The learning effect over a period of time was also assessed.

Results

Over the 12-week period, PI reduced significantly (P < 0.001) with % reduction in plaque from 47% to 59%, 41% to 53% and 45% to 55% for manual, powered and charcoal brush. A significant reduction in GI and SBI was also seen with all the brushes. An insignificant difference in PI, GI and SBI was seen between the brushes. CFU count before and after brushing reduced gradually and statistically significantly (P < 0.001) for all the brushes; however, by end of 12^th week period, there was no significant difference (P > 0.05). The learning effect increased from 35% to 60%, 24% to 56% and 31% to 58% for three brushes, respectively, but was more pronounced for powered brush.

Conclusion

It can be concluded that all the three brushes (manual, powered and charcoal) are clinically effective in removing plaque, with learning effect more pronounced for powered brush and if proper technique is followed, no brush is superior to the other.

A network meta-analysis of interproximal oral hygiene methods in the reduction of clinical indices of inflammation

BACKGROUND

A wide selection of Interdental Oral Hygiene (IOH) aids is available to consumers. Recommendations for selection are, however, limited by the lack of direct comparisons in available studies. We aimed to assess the comparative efficacy of IOH aids using Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis (BNMA).

METHODS

Two independent reviewers performed a systematic literature review of randomized clinical trials assessing IOH aids, based on a focused question. Gingival inflammation (Gingival Index (GI), Bleeding-on-probing (BOP)) was the primary outcome and plaque and probing depth were secondary outcomes A random-effects arm-based BNMA model was run for each outcome; posterior medians and 95% credible-intervals (CIs) summarized marginal distributions of parameters.

RESULTS

A two-phase selection process identified 22 trials assessing 10 IOH aids as brushing adjuncts. Interdental brushes (IB) yielded the largest reduction in GI (0.23 [95% CI: 0.09, 0.37]) as toothbrushing adjuncts, followed by water-jet (WJ) (0.19 [95% CI: 0.14, 0.24]). Rankings based on posterior probabilities revealed that IB and WJ had the highest probability of being "best" (64.7% and 27.4%, respectively) for GI reduction, whereas the probability for toothpick and floss being the "best" IOH aids was near zero. Notably, except for toothpicks, all IOH aids were better at reducing GI as compared with control.

CONCLUSIONS

BNMA enabled us to quantitatively evaluate IOH aids and provide a global ranking of their efficacy. Interdental brushes and water-jets ranked high for reducing gingival bleeding, whereas toothpicks and floss ranked last. The patient-perceived benefit of IOH aids is not clear because gingival inflammation measures are physical indicators of periodontal health.

Oral cleanliness in daily users of powered vs. manual toothbrushes - a cross-sectional study

Background

Toothbrushing is a daily routine. Still, when adults are asked to manually perform oral hygiene to the best of their abilities, a considerable amount of plaque persists. Little is known about the performance of people who use a powered toothbrush. The present study thus analysed whether the capability to achieve oral cleanliness is better in people for whom powered toothbrushing is a daily routine.

Methods

University students, who either performed powered (N = 55) or manual (N = 60) toothbrushing for more than 6 months on a daily basis were asked to clean their teeth to the best of their abilities by their own device. Plaque was assessed prior to and immediately after brushing. Furthermore, gingival bleeding, recessions, periodontal pocket depths and dental status were assessed. Oral hygiene performance was video-taped and analyzed with respect to brushing duration, sites of brushing and application of interproximal cleaning devices.

Results

No differences between groups were found with respect to plaque before and after brushing, clinical parameters and overall brushing duration (all p > 0.05, all d < 0.156). After brushing, plaque persisted at approximately 40% of the sections adjacent to the gingival margin in both groups.

Conclusions

No advantage of daily powered toothbrushing as compared to daily manual toothbrushing was seen with respect to oral hygiene or clinical parameters. The capability to achieve oral cleanliness was low, irrespective of the type of toothbrush under consideration. Additional effort is thus needed to improve this capability.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12903-019-0790-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Home use of interdental cleaning devices, in addition to toothbrushing, for preventing and controlling periodontal diseases and dental caries

BACKGROUND

Dental caries (tooth decay) and periodontal diseases (gingivitis and periodontitis) affect the majority of people worldwide, and treatment costs place a significant burden on health services. Decay and gum disease can cause pain, eating and speaking difficulties, low self-esteem, and even tooth loss and the need for surgery. As dental plaque is the primary cause, self-administered daily mechanical disruption and removal of plaque is important for oral health. Toothbrushing can remove supragingival plaque on the facial and lingual/palatal surfaces, but special devices (such as floss, brushes, sticks, and irrigators) are often recommended to reach into the interdental area.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of interdental cleaning devices used at home, in addition to toothbrushing, compared with toothbrushing alone, for preventing and controlling periodontal diseases, caries, and plaque. A secondary objective was to compare different interdental cleaning devices with each other.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 16 January 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2018, Issue 12), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 16 January 2019), Embase Ovid (1980 to 16 January 2019) and CINAHL EBSCO (1937 to 16 January 2019). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared toothbrushing and a home-use interdental cleaning device versus toothbrushing alone or with another device (minimum duration four weeks).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently screened searches, selected studies, extracted data, assessed studies' risk of bias, and assessed evidence certainty as high, moderate, low or very low, according to GRADE. We extracted indices measured on interproximal surfaces, where possible. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses, using mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 35 RCTs (3929 randomised adult participants). Studies were at high risk of performance bias as blinding of participants was not possible. Only two studies were otherwise at low risk of bias. Many participants had a low level of baseline gingival inflammation.Studies evaluated the following devices plus toothbrushing versus toothbrushing: floss (15 trials), interdental brushes (2 trials), wooden cleaning sticks (2 trials), rubber/elastomeric cleaning sticks (2 trials), oral irrigators (5 trials). Four devices were compared with floss: interdental brushes (9 trials), wooden cleaning sticks (3 trials), rubber/elastomeric cleaning sticks (9 trials) and oral irrigators (2 trials). Another comparison was rubber/elastomeric cleaning sticks versus interdental brushes (3 trials).No trials assessed interproximal caries, and most did not assess periodontitis. Gingivitis was measured by indices (most commonly, Löe-Silness, 0 to 3 scale) and by proportion of bleeding sites. Plaque was measured by indices, most often Quigley-Hein (0 to 5).

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE

comparisons against toothbrushing aloneLow-certainty evidence suggested that flossing, in addition to toothbrushing, may reduce gingivitis (measured by gingival index (GI)) at one month (SMD -0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.12 to -0.04; 8 trials, 585 participants), three months or six months. The results for proportion of bleeding sites and plaque were inconsistent (very low-certainty evidence).Very low-certainty evidence suggested that using an interdental brush, plus toothbrushing, may reduce gingivitis (measured by GI) at one month (MD -0.53, 95% CI -0.83 to -0.23; 1 trial, 62 participants), though there was no clear difference in bleeding sites (MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.03; 1 trial, 31 participants). Low-certainty evidence suggested interdental brushes may reduce plaque more than toothbrushing alone (SMD -1.07, 95% CI -1.51 to -0.63; 2 trials, 93 participants).Very low-certainty evidence suggested that using wooden cleaning sticks, plus toothbrushing, may reduce bleeding sites at three months (MD -0.25, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.13; 1 trial, 24 participants), but not plaque (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.07).Very low-certainty evidence suggested that using rubber/elastomeric interdental cleaning sticks, plus toothbrushing, may reduce plaque at one month (MD -0.22, 95% CI -0.41 to -0.03), but this was not found for gingivitis (GI MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.21; 1 trial, 12 participants; bleeding MD 0.07, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.01; 1 trial, 30 participants).Very-low certainty evidence suggested oral irrigators may reduce gingivitis measured by GI at one month (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.06; 4 trials, 380 participants), but not at three or six months. Low-certainty evidence suggested that oral irrigators did not reduce bleeding sites at one month (MD -0.00, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.06; 2 trials, 126 participants) or three months, or plaque at one month (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.10; 3 trials, 235 participants), three months or six months, more than toothbrushing alone.

SECONDARY OBJECTIVE

comparisons between devicesLow-certainty evidence suggested interdental brushes may reduce gingivitis more than floss at one and three months, but did not show a difference for periodontitis measured by probing pocket depth. Evidence for plaque was inconsistent.Low- to very low-certainty evidence suggested oral irrigation may reduce gingivitis at one month compared to flossing, but very low-certainty evidence did not suggest a difference between devices for plaque.Very low-certainty evidence for interdental brushes or flossing versus interdental cleaning sticks did not demonstrate superiority of either intervention.Adverse eventsStudies that measured adverse events found no severe events caused by devices, and no evidence of differences between study groups in minor effects such as gingival irritation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Using floss or interdental brushes in addition to toothbrushing may reduce gingivitis or plaque, or both, more than toothbrushing alone. Interdental brushes may be more effective than floss. Available evidence for tooth cleaning sticks and oral irrigators is limited and inconsistent. Outcomes were mostly measured in the short term and participants in most studies had a low level of baseline gingival inflammation. Overall, the evidence was low to very low-certainty, and the effect sizes observed may not be clinically important. Future trials should report participant periodontal status according to the new periodontal diseases classification, and last long enough to measure interproximal caries and periodontitis.

Effect of supragingival oral irrigation as an adjunct to toothbrushing on plaque accumulation in chronic generalized gingivitis patients

Aim:

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of supragingival oral irrigation either with water or different concentrations of chlorhexidine (CHX) digluconate as an adjunct to toothbrushing on plaque accumulation in chronic generalized gingivitis patients.

Materials and Methods:

Fifty patients were randomly allocated into five groups. Group 1: toothbrushing alone, Group 2: toothbrushing with mouthwash, Group 3: toothbrushing with water irrigation, Group 4: toothbrushing with 0.0075% CHX digluconate (36 mg) supragingival irrigation, and Group 5: toothbrushing with 0.02% CHX digluconate (96 mg) supragingival irrigation. The collected data were subjected to statistical analysis.

Statistical Analysis:

Descriptive data were obtained for all outcome variables and reported as mean ± standard deviation. The Student's t-test, Chi-square test, and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) were applied for the statistical evaluation of means and comparisons of proportions, and post hoc Bonferroni test was used for multiple comparisons after the application of the ANOVA test for comparison within the groups.

Results:

When intergroup difference of the mean differences was compared for individuals using toothbrushing along with 0.0075% CHX digluconate irrigation and those using toothbrushing along with 0.02% CHX digluconate irrigation from BL-14, BL-28, and between 14 and 28 days, it was found to be statistically nonsignificant.

Conclusions:

In our study, the CHX digluconate concentration for mouthwash and oral irrigation in addition with toothbrushing was found to be same, i.e., <50 mg for improving the gingival health by reducing gingival inflammation.

Powered versus manual toothbrushing for oral health

BACKGROUND

Removing dental plaque may play a key role maintaining oral health. There is conflicting evidence for the relative merits of manual and powered toothbrushing in achieving this. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2003, and previously updated in 2005.

OBJECTIVES

To compare manual and powered toothbrushes in everyday use, by people of any age, in relation to the removal of plaque, the health of the gingivae, staining and calculus, dependability, adverse effects and cost.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 23 January 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 1), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 23 January 2014), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 23 January 2014) and CINAHL via EBSCO (1980 to 23 January 2014). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register and the WHO Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of at least four weeks of unsupervised powered toothbrushing versus manual toothbrushing for oral health in children and adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Random-effects models were used provided there were four or more studies included in the meta-analysis, otherwise fixed-effect models were used. Data were classed as short term (one to three months) and long term (greater than three months).

MAIN RESULTS

Fifty-six trials met the inclusion criteria; 51 trials involving 4624 participants provided data for meta-analysis. Five trials were at low risk of bias, five at high and 46 at unclear risk of bias.There is moderate quality evidence that powered toothbrushes provide a statistically significant benefit compared with manual toothbrushes with regard to the reduction of plaque in both the short term (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.50 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.70 to -0.31); 40 trials, n = 2871) and long term (SMD -0.47 (95% CI -0.82 to -0.11; 14 trials, n = 978). These results correspond to an 11% reduction in plaque for the Quigley Hein index (Turesky) in the short term and 21% reduction long term. Both meta-analyses showed high levels of heterogeneity (I(2) = 83% and 86% respectively) that was not explained by the different powered toothbrush type subgroups.With regard to gingivitis, there is moderate quality evidence that powered toothbrushes again provide a statistically significant benefit when compared with manual toothbrushes both in the short term (SMD -0.43 (95% CI -0.60 to -0.25); 44 trials, n = 3345) and long term (SMD -0.21 (95% CI -0.31 to -0.12); 16 trials, n = 1645). This corresponds to a 6% and 11% reduction in gingivitis for the Löe and Silness index respectively. Both meta-analyses showed high levels of heterogeneity (I(2) = 82% and 51% respectively) that was not explained by the different powered toothbrush type subgroups.The number of trials for each type of powered toothbrush varied: side to side (10 trials), counter oscillation (five trials), rotation oscillation (27 trials), circular (two trials), ultrasonic (seven trials), ionic (four trials) and unknown (five trials). The greatest body of evidence was for rotation oscillation brushes which demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in plaque and gingivitis at both time points.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Powered toothbrushes reduce plaque and gingivitis more than manual toothbrushing in the short and long term. The clinical importance of these findings remains unclear. Observation of methodological guidelines and greater standardisation of design would benefit both future trials and meta-analyses.Cost, reliability and side effects were inconsistently reported. Any reported side effects were localised and only temporary.

Toothbrush efficacy for plaque removal

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effectiveness of a novel sonic toothbrush in reducing plaque and in maintenance of gingival health when compared to a standard manual brush.

METHODS

This study was a block-randomized, examiner-blind, two-treatment, parallel group, single centre clinical investigation. A total of 84 subjects were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either the Panasonic EW-DL90 or an American Dental Association-endorsed manual toothbrush. Subjects were instructed to follow a twice-daily brushing regimen without flossing. Plaque levels and gingival health were assessed at baseline and after 1 and 3 weeks of treatment using the Turesky Modification of the Quigley-Hein Plaque Index and the Papillary Bleeding Score.

RESULTS

Subjects assigned to the EW-DL90 group had significantly lower plaque levels after 1 and 3 weeks of treatment than those in the manual group (P = 0.003 and 0.0035, respectively). Both groups showed a reduction in plaque levels at Week 3 relative to baseline. The EW-DL90 group had significantly lower gingival inflammation scores after 1 week of treatment (P = 0.0293), but there was no difference between groups after 3 weeks of treatment.

CONCLUSION

The EW-DL90 toothbrush safely and effectively removes more plaque than a standard manual toothbrush. Improvement in gingival inflammation was observed after 1 week of treatment. There was no difference in Papillary Bleeding Score between the two groups after 3 weeks of treatment.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

The newly developed sonic brush (Panasonic EW-DL90) tested in this study was found to be more effective than a manual toothbrush at plaque removal. The papillary bleeding scores were significantly lower in the sonic brush group after 1 week of product use. After 3 weeks of product use, both treatment groups had similar papillary bleeding scores almost returning to baseline values.

A comparison of the efficacy of powered and manual toothbrushes in controlling plaque and gingivitis: a clinical study

BACKGROUND

Plaque is intimately related to the production and progress of dental caries and inflammatory gingival and periodontal diseases. Good plaque control facilitates the return to health for patients with gingival and periodontal diseases. Daily use of a toothbrush and other oral hygiene aids is the most dependable way to achieve oral health benefits for all patients.

METHODS

A randomized clinical trial was conducted to compare the efficacy of a powered toothbrush with a manual toothbrush in controlling plaque and gingivitis over a 6-week period. The sample consisted of 60 dental students of both sexes, with ages ranging from 18 to 28 years. The samples were stratified and randomly divided into two groups of 30 by a second examiner using the coin toss method; one group used a manual toothbrush and the other group used a powered toothbrush. Each participant's gingival index, plaque index and oral hygiene index were assessed on the seventh, 14th, and 45th days on the basis of the assigned toothbrush. Collected data were analyzed and different subgroups were compared using Student's t-test.

RESULTS

A paired t-test revealed a highly significant reduction in the gingival, plaque, and oral hygiene index scores of the manual and powered groups at the first, second, and sixth weeks (P-value < 0.0001). An unpaired t-test revealed a significant reduction between the plaque index scores of the manual and powered groups at the second week (P-value < 0.05). Another unpaired t-test revealed a highly significant reduction between the plaque index scores of the manual and powered groups at the sixth week (P-value < 0.0001).

CONCLUSION

The subject group using the powered toothbrush demonstrated clinical and statistical improvement in overall plaque scores. Powered toothbrushes offer an individual the ability to brush the teeth in a way that is optimal in terms of removing plaque and improving gingival health, conferring good brushing technique on all who use them, irrespective of manual dexterity or training.

Quality of trials in a systematic review of powered toothbrushes: suggestions for future clinical trials

BACKGROUND

This study aimed to assess the quality of reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing manual and powered toothbrushes and provide advice on how future trials might be improved.

METHODS

Studies were identified in the Cochrane systematic review of RCTs comparing powered versus manual toothbrushes. Reports were assessed against predefined criteria on the design of the studies to determine the effectiveness of the brushes in everyday home use and on their methodological quality.

RESULTS

Only 42 of 297 identified studies satisfied the inclusion criteria and were eligible for inclusion in the review. Many studies were excluded for more than one reason. Fifteen studies employed split-mouth designs that may have changed toothbrushing behavior. Of 42 included RCTs, the generation of randomization sequence was adequate in 15 trials and concealment of allocation was adequate in 16 trials. Intention-to-treat analysis was reported in only five studies. Plaque data were reported using 10 different indices and gingivitis with nine indices. Only 12 trials lasted 3 months or longer, and there were no data on the benefits of powered toothbrushes for periodontal attachment.

CONCLUSIONS

Some designs created an artificial research environment that may have undermined the findings. Authors of toothbrush trials should consider the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials statement. Greater standardization of the indices used is required. Trials of longer duration would enhance the evaluation of powered toothbrushes. Data on thresholds for clinically significant differences in plaque and gingivitis levels would help to determine whether oral hygiene aids provide important health benefits.

Manual versus powered toothbrushing for oral health

BACKGROUND

Removing dental plaque may play a key role maintaining oral health. There is conflicting evidence for the relative merits of manual and powered toothbrushing in achieving this.

OBJECTIVES

To compare manual and powered toothbrushes in relation to the removal of plaque, the health of the gingivae, staining and calculus, dependability, adverse effects and cost.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 17/06/2004) and Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2004); MEDLINE (January 1966 to week 2 June 2004); EMBASE (January 1980 to week 2 2004) and CINAHL (January 1982 to week 2 June 2004). Manufacturers were contacted for additional data.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Trials were selected for the following criteria: design-random allocation of participants; participants - general public with uncompromised manual dexterity; intervention - unsupervised manual and powered toothbrushing for at least 4 weeks. Primary outcomes were the change in plaque and gingivitis over that period.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Six authors independently extracted information. The effect measure for each meta-analysis was the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random-effects models. Potential sources of heterogeneity were examined, along with sensitivity analyses for quality and publication bias. For discussion purposes SMD was translated into percentage change.

MAIN RESULTS

Forty-two trials, involving 3855 participants, provided data. Brushes with a rotation oscillation action removed plaque and reduced gingivitis more effectively than manual brushes in the short term and reduced gingivitis scores in studies over 3 months. For plaque at 1 to 3 months the SMD was -0.43 (95% CI: -0.72 to -0.14), for gingivitis SMD -0.62 (95% CI: -0.90 to -0.34) representing an 11% difference on the Quigley Hein plaque index and a 6% reduction on the Loe and Silness gingival index. At over 3 months the SMD for plaque was -1.29 (95% CI: -2.67 to 0.08) and for gingivitis was -0.51 (-0.76 to -0.25) representing a 17% reduction on the Ainamo Bay bleeding on probing index. There was heterogeneity between the trials for the short-term follow up. Sensitivity analyses revealed the results to be robust when selecting trials of high quality. There was no evidence of any publication bias. No other powered designs were as consistently superior to manual toothbrushes.Cost, reliability and side effects were inconsistently reported. Any reported side effects were localised and temporary.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Powered toothbrushes with a rotation oscillation action reduce plaque and gingivitis more than manual toothbrushing. Observation of methodological guidelines and greater standardisation of design would benefit both future trials and meta-analyses.

Effect of instruction and motivation in the use of electric and manual toothbrushes in periodontal patients: a comparative study

The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of manual and electric toothbrushes in plaque control in periodontal patients after proper instructions. Thirty six periodontal patients (mean age of 49 years, 21 females and 15 males) were included and completed the study (100% compliance). A single-blinded, randomized, controlled, cross-over clinical design was adopted, with the patients using during 2 periods of 14 days each the manual and/or electric toothbrush. Four subgroups of 9 individuals were studied: A1 - used manual toothbrush in both experimental periods; A2 - used the manual toothbrush during the first period and the electrical toothbrush during the second period; B1 - used electrical toothbrush during both periods; B2 - used the electrical toothbrush in the first period and the manual one in the second period. Brushing was performed during 14 days and at day 14 and 28 it was performed in the clinic, and timing of brushing was recorded without patients being aware. The Plaque Index (Silness, Löe, 1964) was used. Intra-group comparisons were performed by paired t-test and inter-group comparisons by independent sample t-test, with an alpha level of 0.05. The results showed no difference between the tested brushes neither for plaque nor for timing. However, re-instruction was detected as an important factor, since for all groups the second period, after reinstruction, showed lower plaque scores. It is concluded that professional advice and instruction and re-instruction seem more important in order to obtain good plaque control than the choice of toothbrush in subjects with periodontal disease.

A clinical comparison of an oscillating/rotating powered toothbrush and a manual toothbrush in patients with chronic periodontitis

OBJECTIVES

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE

To compare the relative efficacy of an oscillating/rotating powered toothbrush to that of a conventional manual toothbrush in a group of periodontal patients over a 16-month period with respect to plaque control.

SECONDARY OBJECTIVE

To compare differences in pocket depth (PD) and bleeding index (BI) between the two groups over a 16-month period.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Forty patients were recruited to a 16-month, single-blind, two-group, randomised, parallel group clinical trial to compare the effects of manual and oscillating/rotating powered toothbrushes in a cohort of patients with chronic periodontitis. None of the patients had previous experience of using an oscillating/rotating brush and had a mean plaque index (PI) of > 2.0 (modified Quigley and Hein index) at baseline. Patients were stratified by gender, age and smoking status then randomised to using a manual or an oscillating/rotating brush for the duration of the study. Conventional non-surgical periodontal therapy was undertaken within the first month after baseline. PI was the primary outcome measure with PDs and BI also recorded at baseline and months 3, 6, 10 and 16.

RESULTS

Mean full-mouth (FM) scores at baseline for oscillating/rotating brushing and manual brushing groups were as follows: PI, 3.4 and 3.5; BI, 1.7 and 1.5; and PD, 3.4 and 3.3. The mean reduction in FM scores from baseline to 16 months were: PI, 0.72 and 0.75; PD, 0.43 and 0.57; and BI, 0.74 and 0.83, respectively. Repeated measures ANOVA were used to compare differences between groups (adjusted for baseline levels) at months 3, 6, 10 and 16 and showed no statistically significant difference between groups for PI and PD (p > 0.05). A difference of 0.2 BI units was detected in favour of the manual brushing group (p = 0.04).

CONCLUSION

Over a 16-month period, there were no differences in PI reduction or PD reduction between patients who underwent non-surgical management of chronic periodontal disease and used either an oscillating/rotating powered toothbrush or a conventional manual toothbrush. A difference in gingival bleeding reduction was detected in favour of the patients allocated the manual brush.

Does professional preventive care benefit from additional subgingival irrigation?

The effect of an oral irrigator (Water Pik, Intersante) with a subgingival tip (Pik Pocket Subgingival Tip, Intersante) in the reduction of gingivitis was investigated in a single-blind three-group study involving 45 volunteers (age 46.2+/-10.2). All volunteers (inclusion criteria: gingivitis or a superficial periodontitis) were examined and underwent professional tooth cleaning at the first appointment. They were then randomly distributed in three groups: one group used the irrigator with the subgingival tip once daily with just tap water, in addition to their regular oral hygiene; another group also used an herbal-based mouth rinse (Parodontax, GlaxoSmithkline) in the water of the irrigator; a third group did not use an irrigator or any irrigant and therefore served as control. All groups received professional oral care education at each appointment. The investigation period was 3 months. At baseline and after 4, 8, and 12 weeks, the plaque index (PI, scores 0-5), gingival index (GI, scores 0-3), bleeding index (BI scores 0-5), and sulcus fluid flow rate (SFFR, Periotron 6000) at the Ramfjord teeth were scored. At baseline and after 3 months, the probing depth (millimeters) was measured at six surfaces of all teeth. A significant reduction in BI, PI, GI, probing depth, and SFFR was observed within 3 months. With all volunteers, however, there was no statistically significant difference ( p>/=0.05, Wilcoxon-test, SAS 6.04) between the three groups at any time. The additional use of the Water Pik irrigator with the Pik Pocket subgingival irrigation device with or without an herbal mouth rinse showed no clinical benefit over professional education in oral hygiene alone.

The effectiveness of manual versus powered toothbrushes for dental health: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To compare manual and powered toothbrushes in everyday use, principally in relation to plaque removal and gingival health. Stain, calculus removal, dependability, adverse effects and cost were also considered.

METHOD

A systematic review was undertaken in collaboration with the Cochrane Oral Health Group. Five electronic databases were searched to identify randomised controlled trials comparing powered and manual toothbrushes. Trials of less than 28 days duration, or where toothbrushing was supervised, were excluded. Assessment of relevance, data extraction and validity assessment were all undertaken independently and in duplicate by two reviewers. Included studies were grouped according to the mode of action of the powered toothbrush. The primary outcomes were plaque and gingival health with data defined as either short-term (1-3 months) or long-term (greater than 3 months) duration were analysed. Powered brushes were categorised into six groups depending on mode of action. Numerical data extracted were checked by a third reviewer for accuracy and entered into RevMan (version 4.1).

RESULTS

The initial search identified 354 studies. Two hundred and fifteen full articles were obtained of which 29 trials fulfilled the inclusion criteria with results, which could be entered in the meta-analysis. Twenty-six trials (1786 participants) reported short-term and 10 trials (798 participants) long-term plaque scores. Twenty-nine trials (2236 participants) reported short-term and 10 trials (798 participants) long-term gingivitis scores. Powered brushes reduced plaque and gingivitis at least as effectively as manual brushing. Rotation oscillation powered brushes statistically significantly reduced plaque and gingivitis in both the short and long-term. For plaque at one to 3 months the standardised mean difference was -0.44 (95% CI: -0.66 to -0.21), for gingivitis SMD -0.45 (95% CI: -0.76, -0.15). These represented an 11% reduction on the Quigley Hein Plaque index and a 6% reduction on the Löe and Silness gingival index. At over 3 months the effects were SMD for plaque -1.15 (95% CI: -2.02, -0.29) and SMD for gingivitis -0.51 (95% CI: -0.76, -0.25). These represented a 7% reduction on the Quigley Hein Plaque Index and a 17% reduction on the Ainamo Bay Bleeding on Probing Gingival Index. Sensitivity analyses revealed the results to be robust when selecting trials of high quality. There was no evidence of any publication bias. No other powered brush designs were consistently superior to manual toothbrushes. In these trials, data on cost, reliability and side effects were inconsistently reported.

CONCLUSION

In general there was no evidence of a statistically significant difference between powered and manual brushes. However, rotation oscillation powered brushes significantly reduce plaque and gingivitis in both the short and long-term. The clinical significance of this reduction is not known. Observation of methodological guidelines and greater standardisation of design would benefit both future trials and meta-analyses.

Can tooth brushing damage your health? Effects on oral and dental tissues

Circumstantial evidence based on anecdote, case reports, epidemiological data and studies in vitro and in situ implicate tooth brushing with toothpaste with tooth wear, gingival recession and dentine hypersensitivity. This review attempts to assess the clinical significance of the potential harm produced by this most common oral hygiene habit. The toothbrush alone appears to have no effect on enamel and very little on dentine. Most toothpaste also has very little effect on enamel and in normal use would not cause significant wear of dentine in a lifetime of use. Wear of enamel and dentine can be dramatically increased if tooth brushing follows an erosive challenge. Gingival recession has a multi-factorial aetiology and certain individuals and specific teeth may be predisposed to trauma from tooth brushing. Tooth brushing is known to cause gingival abrasions but how these relate to gingival recession is not known. The role of toothpaste in gingival abrasion and recession surprisingly has received little if any attention. Gingival recession most commonly exposes dentine and localises sites for dentine hypersensitivity. Some toothpaste products can expose dentinal tubules but erosion is probably the more dominant factor in dentine hypersensitivity. There is no evidence to indicate that electric and manual toothbrushes differ in effects on soft and hard tissues. It is only under, over or abusive use or when combined with erosion that significant harm may be thus caused. In normal use it must be concluded that the benefits of tooth brushing far out-way the potential harm.

A systematic review of powered vs manual toothbrushes in periodontal cause-related therapy

BACKGROUND

Power-driven toothbrushes (PDT) have been designed to improve the efficacy of oral hygiene. It is not clear how they compare in efficacy with manual toothbrushes in cause-related periodontal therapy.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of the use of a PDT as compared with a manual toothbrush (MT), in terms of gingival bleeding or inflammation resolution, in cause-related periodontal therapy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

An electronic (MEDLINE and Cochrane Oral Health Group Specialised Trials Register) and a manual search were made to detect studies which permitted the evaluation of the efficacy of PDT in the reduction of gingival bleeding or inflammation, and their effect on other secondary variables. Only randomized studies in adults, published in English up to June 2001, which compared a PDT with an MT, and evaluated the evolution of gingival bleeding or inflammation were included. The selection of articles, extraction of data and assessment of validity were made independently by several reviewers.

RESULTS

Twenty-one studies were finally selected. The heterogeneity of the data prevented a quantitative analysis. A higher efficacy in the reduction of gingival bleeding or inflammation in the PDT patients was detected in 10 studies. This effect appears to be related to the capacity to reduce plaque, and is more evident in counter-rotational and oscillating-rotating brushes. No solid evidence was found for a higher efficacy of sonic brushes. In short-term studies with prophylaxis after initial examination, independently of the type of PDT tested, no significant differences were found.

CONCLUSION

The use of PDT, especially counter-rotational and oscillating-rotating brushes, can be beneficial in reducing the levels of gingival bleeding or inflammation. There is a need for methodological homogeneity in future studies in this field to enable quantitative analysis of their results.

Toothbrushing and gingival recession

AIM

To review the hypothesis that toothbrushing leads to gingival recession. Gingival recession develops due to anatomical and pathological factors. The prevalence of recession is dependent on the age and characteristic of the population because it usually presents in individuals with periodontal disease or those who practise zealous or improper oral hygiene methods. Gingival trauma and gingival abrasion from toothbrushing is thought to progress directly to gingival recession. Case studies documenting recession from toothbrush trauma are speculative. Short-term studies suggest that gingival trauma and gingival abrasion may result from toothbrushing, but the direct relationship between traumatic home care and gingival recession is inconclusive. Long-term studies remain elusive or do not support the development of recession following toothbrushing. Nevertheless, tooth abrasion may be an integral part in the aetiology of recession. Toothbrush abrasion also may cause wear at the cemento-enamel junction resulting in the destruction of the supporting periodontium leading to recession.

Manual versus powered toothbrushing for oral health

BACKGROUND

Specific oral bacteria, generically known as "dental plaque" are the primary cause of gingivitis (gum disease) and caries. The removal of dental plaque is thought to play a key role in the maintenance of oral health. There is conflicting evidence for the relative merits of manual and powered toothbrushing in achieving this.

OBJECTIVES

To compare manual and powered toothbrushes in relation to the removal of plaque, the health of the gingivae, staining and calculus, dependability, adverse effects and cost.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 22/8/02); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library Issue 3, 2002); MEDLINE (January 1966 to week 5 2002); EMBASE (January 1980 to week 3 July 2002) and CINAHL (January 1982 to June 2002). Manufacturers of powered toothbrushes were contacted for additional published and unpublished trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Trials were selected if they met the following criteria: design-random allocation of participants; participants-general public with uncompromised manual dexterity; intervention- supervised manual and powered toothbrushing for at least four weeks; primary outcomes-the change in plaque and gingivitis over that period.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Six reviewers independently extracted information in duplicate. Indices for plaque and gingivitis were expressed as standardised values for each study. The effect measure for each meta-analysis was the standardised mean difference (SMD) with the appropriate 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random effect models. Potential sources of heterogeneity were examined, along with sensitivity analyses for the items assessed for quality and publication bias.

MAIN RESULTS

Twenty-nine trials, involving 2,547 participants, provided data for the meta-analysis. Brushes that worked with a rotation oscillation action removed more plaque and reduced gingivitis more effectively than manual brushes in the short and long term. For plaque at one to three months the SMD was -0.44 (95% CI: -0.66 to -0.21), for gingivitis SMD -0.44 (95% CI: -0.72, -0.15). These represented an 11% reduction on the Quigley Hein plaque index and a 6% reduction on the Löe and Silness gingival index. At over three months the effects were SMD for plaque -1.15 (95% CI: -2.02,-0.29) and SMD for gingivitis -0.51 (95% CI: -0.76, -0.25). These represented a 7% reduction on the Quigley Hein Plaque Index and a 17% reduction on the Ainamo Bay Bleeding on Probing Gingival Index. The heterogeneity found in these meta-analyses for short term trials was caused by one trial that had exceptionally low standard deviations. Sensitivity analyses revealed the results to be robust when selecting trials of high quality. There was no evidence of any publication bias. No other powered brush designs were consistently superior to manual toothbrushes. In these trials, data on cost, reliability and side effects were inconsistently reported. Those side effects that were reported on in the trials were localised and temporary.

REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS

Powered toothbrushes with a rotation oscillation action achieve a modest reduction in plaque and gingivitis compared to manual toothbrushing. Observation of methodological guidelines and greater standardisation of design would benefit both future trials and meta-analyses.

Comparison of the clinical effects and gingival abrasion aspects of manual and electric toothbrushes

AIMS

The clinical effects and gingival abrasion aspects of 2 electrical tooth-brushes (Braun Oral-B Plak Control Ultra and the novel development Braun Oral-B Plak Control 3D) were to be compared with conventional manual tooth-brushing.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In a cross-over study, 26 dental student volunteers participated and were assigned to 1 of 3 groups. Following instruction in the use of the electric as well as manual toothbrushes, the volunteers were timed for 2 min each day to apply one electric or the manual toothbrush, respectively, during 3 experimental phases of 2 weeks. No other methods of tooth cleaning were to be performed except the one specified for the respective test period. When brushing manually, the Bass toothbrushing technique was applied. Between each test period, a recovery period of 1 week was allowed during which no oral hygiene was performed at all. At the start and the end of each of the experimental periods, the extension of plaque deposits from the gingival margin in coronal direction was assessed using the Turesky et al. modification of the Quigley and Hein plaque index. Presence or absence of gingival inflammation was evaluated by bleeding and probing (BOP). The extent and severity of gingival abrasions were assessed by use of a modified method of Breitenmoser et al. and adapted by Danser et al.

RESULTS

The plaque-reducing effect was similar in all groups with the same cleaning regime. For that reason, the result of the different experimental phases with the respective cleaning modalities were collapsed. Cleaning with the Braun Oral-B Plak Control Ultra electric toothbrush resulted consistently in the lowest plaque scores when compared to both the Braun Oral-B Plak Control 3D and the manual toothbrush. Although the differences in plaque reduction were statistically significant between cleaning with Braun Oral-B Plak Control Ultra and 3D, they were small and of questionable clinical relevance. No significant differences in plaque reductions were found between manual brushing and any of the 2 electric brushes. Gingival abrasions were least pronounced following brushing with the Braun Oral-B Plak Control 3D electric toothbrush. However, no significant differences in gingival abrasion were encountered following brushing with the Braun Oral-B Plak Control Ultra electric in comparison with the manual toothbrush.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the present study have shown that in a group of dental students trained in manual brushing technique, where efficacy was similar with the 3 toothbrushes tested, there is no evidence of greater gingival abrasion with either Braun Oral-B Plak Control Ultra or 3D when compared with a manual brush.

An evaluation of the efficacy of a curved bristle and conventional toothbrush. A comparative clinical study

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to determine the plaque-removing ability of a curved bristle toothbrush compared to a conventional, straight bristle, manual toothbrush.

METHODS

The study group consisted of 100 volunteers 16 to 24 years of age from a professional engineering college. A four-week post-prophylaxis, parallel, longitudinal, double-blind clinical study was conducted; all volunteers were instructed in specific oral hygiene techniques. Plaque was assessed at baseline and at the end of 1, 2, 3, and 4 weeks using the Quigley-Hein plaque index after disclosing with erythrosin red. Gingival status was assessed at baseline and at the end of 1, 2, 3 and 4 weeks by using the gingival index of Löe and Silness.

RESULTS

Comparative assessment showed a mean of 2.11 +/- 0.086 mm for group 1 and 2.37 +/- 0.216 mm for group 2, indicating a significant difference between the plaque-removing efficacy of the curved bristle and straight bristle toothbrush.

CONCLUSIONS

The curved bristle toothbrush was significantly more effective in removing plaque overall than the conventional toothbrush.

Sonic and mechanical toothbrushes. An in vitro study showing altered microbial surface structures but lack of effect on viability

The purpose of the present study was to compare the in vitro effects of a mechanical and a sonic toothbrush on the viability of Actinomyces viscosus, the rationale being that induction of irreparable microbial damage resulting from aggressive mechanical action or sonic energy, may inhibit or disrupt the process of successional colonization. Cultures of A. viscosus were grown to a standardized optical density and subdivided into 3 treatment groups of 20 specimens each. Treatment groups consisted of an untreated control and exposure to a mechanical or sonic toothbrush for 15, 30, 45, and 60 s. Subsequent to the prescribed treatment, samples were taken from each specimen dish, subcultured, and the number of CFUs determined. Additional samples were obtained for negative staining and examination by electron microscopy. The mean number of CFUs for each treatment group at each treatment interval were statistically analyzed by ANOVA and multiple pairwise comparisons. Results showed a significant main effect for toothbrushes (p<0.0001) and exposure time (p<0.01), but only marginal significance for the interaction of toothbrush with exposure time (p<0.055). Post-hoc tests showed a significantly greater number of CFUs for the sonic toothbrush compared to both the untreated control and mechanical toothbrush groups. Electron microscopic examination revealed a decrease in aggregation tendency and loss of fimbriae in the sonic toothbrush group. Based on the lack of morphologic evidence that would indicate cell damage and the increase in CFUs over that of the control group, it appeared that neither the mechanical or sonic toothbrushes affected cell viability.

Evaluation of the incidence of gingival abrasion as a result of toothbrushing

The aims of the present study were: (1) to establish the incidence of gingival abrasion as a result of toothbrushing, using a manual and electric toothbrush; (2) to establish the influence of filament end-rounding on the incidence of gingival abrasion and the efficacy of toothbrushing; (3) to assess whether the speed of the electric brush has a feedback-effect on the brushing force used and to correlate the incidence of gingival abrasion with force. 2 experiments were carried out. In the first experiment, 50 subjects brushed for 3 weeks every other day with either a manual (Butler 411) or an electric toothbrush (Braun/Oral-B Ultra Plaque Remover-D9). All received brief instructions and were asked to abstain from oral hygiene 24 hrs before their appointment. After disclosing the teeth and gums with Mira-2-Tone solution, plaque and gingival abrasion were assessed. Next, the panelists brushed in a random split-mouth order. After brushing and a second disclosing, plaque and abrasion were re-assessed. The results showed that the incidence of gingival abrasion was comparable for the manual and the D9. Using a similar design as in experiment no. 1, in experiment no. 2 a new group of 47 subjects brushed for 3 weeks alternating between the Braun/Oral-B Plaque Remover-D7 and D9. At the appointment, the subjects first brushed in a split-mouth order with the D9 with 2 different types of endrounding. Plaque and abrasion were assessed. Immediately following this brushing exercise, the subjects re-brushed with the D7 (2800 rot/min) and the D9 (3600 rot/min) during which brushing force was measured. The results of this experiment showed that endrounding has no effect on plaque removal but does effect the incidence of gingival abrasion. Brushing force is not influenced by the speed of the brushhead and no correlation with the incidence of gingival abrasion was observed. In conclusion, the results of this study show that gingival abrasion is not influenced by brushing force, but is affected by filament endrounding.

The effects of an ultrasonic toothbrush on plaque accumulation and gingival inflammation

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of an ultrasonic toothbrush to reduce plaque and gingival inflammation when compared to a manual toothbrush. 62 healthy adult patients with a plaque index of at least 2.0, a 50% bleeding index and at least 16 natural teeth participated in this study. 31 patients were randomly assigned to the manual toothbrush group (group A) and 31 were assigned to an ultrasonic toothbrush group (group B). The Turesky et al. plaque index (PI), Eastman bleeding index, and Loe & Silness gingival index (GI) were performed at baseline, 15, and 30 days at the beginning of each appointment (pre-brushing). Patients then brushed with their assigned toothbrush and a post-brushing plaque index was recorded. Kruskal-Wallis one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed to determine between group differences on the parameters of all clinical indices. Results of the pre-brushing plaque index in group B were significantly lower at 15 and 30 days compared to group A. The post-brushing plaque index demonstrated no statistically significant between or within group differences. Both groups demonstrated significant within group reductions in GI and BI from baseline to 15 days and from 15 to 30 days, however, no between group differences were noted. The results of this study support the ability of an ultrasonic toothbrush to significantly remove plaque and reduce inflammation as well as a manual toothbrush over a 30 day period.

A comparison of the efficacy and safety of an electric and a manual children's toothbrush

Effective plaque control of the primary dentition can be particularly difficult to achieve because of problems with motivation and manual dexterity in some children. This study compared plaque control efficacy of a new electric toothbrush designed specifically for use by children with a children's manual brush. Results showed that in a pediatric population aged between 8 and 12 years, the electric brush achieved significantly greater plaque removal from both primary and permanent dentition.

Assessment of the effect of an oscillating/rotating electric toothbrush on oral health. A 12-month longitudinal study

The aim of this 12-month parallel design controlled clinical trial was to assess the effect of the Braun Oral-B Plak Control electric toothbrush on supragingival plaque and gingival health, and to compare it with a conventional soft manual toothbrush (Jordan). A total of 111 patients aged between 20 and 63 years, from a general population, with bleeding on probing at 30% or more of all sites examined were entered into the study. At baseline, immediately after periodontal examination, all volunteers received a thorough scaling of their teeth. Volunteers in both groups were told to brush their teeth for 2 min 2 x a day. Oral hygiene instruction was given at the start of the study and was not repeated. At 3, 6 and 12 months, assessments were carried out by a single clinician who was not aware which group the volunteers belonged to. Analysis of results demonstrated that over the 12 months of the study, the Braun Oral-B Plak Control was significantly more effective in improving gingival health than the manual toothbrush. There was, however, no difference between the 2 groups in terms of plaque removal, with the number of sites with visible plaque decreasing by a similar amount in both groups. In conclusion, results indicate that the Braun Oral-B Plak Control toothbrush is safe and more effective than a manual toothbrush in improving gingival health.

Transient effect of a short-term educational programme without prophylaxis on control of plaque and gingival inflammation in school children

The development of chronic inflammatory periodontal diseases is strongly correlated with the growth and maturation of subgingival bacterial colonies. Consequently a major preventive goal should be the control of plaque formation. We conducted a randomized, controlled trial to examine the short-term effect of an intensive instructional program without professional prophylaxis on the gingival health of 240, 11-14 year old school children. Plaque index (PlI), gingival index (GI), bleeding index (BI) and probing pocket depth (PD) were examined 4 x by 1 examiner blinded to the instruction. During the period of instruction, subjects in the experimental groups were involved in a plaque and gingivitis prevention program provided in separate educational sessions. One of the experimental groups (E-1; n = 80) was provided with a new toothbrush, toothpaste and instruction while the second experimental group (E-2; n = 80) was provided with toothbrush, toothpaste, dental floss and instruction. In the control group (C; n = 80) only dental examinations were provided: no preventive program or oral health measures were conducted. Examinations were conducted every 3 months during the instructional period and at 6 months following the completion of the active preventive programme. During the experimental period there was a significant decrease (p < 0.001) in the mean PlI, GI and BI of the experimental groups following the program while in controls there was a slight but not significant increase of mean values (p > 0.05). During the preventive program experimental groups exhibited small but not significant (p > 0.05) reductions of PD. Experimental group 1 showed similar PlI, GI, BI and PD scores as experimental group 2 during the study. After the instructional program was completed and a period of 6 months had passed, there was a large and significant (p < 0.001) increase of mean PlI, GI and BI scores in both experimental groups back to the baseline levels. We conclude that a short-term preventative program without professional instrumentation induces a transient improvement of gingival health of schoolchildren but only during the instructional period. The maintenance of improved gingival health over longer time periods requires prolonged, repeated instruction by professionals. These measures may be difficult to institute and are of questionable cost-effectiveness.

Comparison of a sonic and a manual toothbrush for efficacy in supragingival plaque removal and reduction of gingivitis

A new sonic electric toothbrush (Sonicare) and a traditional manual toothbrush were compared for efficacy in removing supragingival plaque and reducing gingival inflammation in a 12-week, single-blind clinical trial. 60 subjects with a gingival index (GI) of > 1.5 and no probing depths > 5 mm were randomly assigned to use either the manual or sonic brush, instructed in its use, and asked to brush each morning and evening for 2 minutes. Plaque scores were taken at baseline and at 1, 2, 4, and 12 weeks using the Turesky modification of the Quigley-Hein plaque index. Gingival inflammation was assessed by the GI, bleeding tendency score, presence or absence of bleeding on probing, volumetric measurements of gingival crevicular fluid (GCF), and aspartate aminotransferase (AST) levels in GCF. Repeated measures multivariate analyses of variance were used to detect time- and device-dependent differences for all clinical assessments between the 2 groups over the 5 visits. Both types of brush were effective in removing supragingival plaque. The sonic brush was statistically superior, on a percentage reduction basis, in removing supragingival plaque from the dentition taken as a whole (F-statistic; p = 0.012) and was particularly better in hard-to-reach areas such as posterior teeth (F-statistic; p = 0.003) and interproximal sites (F-statistic; p = 0.004). Both devices were equally effective in reducing gingival inflammation. The sonic brush exhibited less tendency to cause gingival abrasion than the manual brush (1 incident with sonic, 5 incidents with manual), confirming the safety of this product as an oral hygiene device.

Removal of interproximal subgingival plaque by hand and automatic toothbrushes

Subgingival plaque removal at interproximal sites by automatic and hand toothbrushes was compared with control sites at which cleansing was not performed. There were 58 patients, 35 to 63 years of age, each with one hopeless tooth requiring extraction. Each patient was randomly assigned to one of four test groups: hand brush; automatic toothbrush 1; automatic toothbrush 2; and no brushing. The brushing instructions as stated by the manufacturers were demonstrated and the patient brushed the sextant containing the test tooth for 20 seconds. The level of the gingival margin was marked at each interproximal test site. The teeth were extracted and processed for SEM, and subgingival plaque was viewed at X100 and X2000 magnifications. A montage of photomicrographs of the gingival groove to the occlusal margin of the bacterial plaque at X100 magnification was made and the distance from the groove to the margin was measured. An ANOVA was performed using P = 0.05 level for significance. Due to processing difficulties, only 33 specimens were available for analysis. The average distances from the groove to the subgingival plaque front for the four test groups were 0.514, 0.132, 0.163, and 0.111 mm respectively. The maximum distance (1.5 mm) of plaque removal was greatest for the hand toothbrush. Due to the large standard deviation (0.636 compared to 0.146, 0.250, and 0.124 respectively), the hand brushing group was excluded from ANOVA. There were no statistically significant differences among the automatic toothbrushes and the no brushing control (P = 0.8393). It was concluded that a single session of oral hygiene instruction with an automatic toothbrush did not result in subgingival interproximal plaque cleansing.

Compliance in use of electric toothbrushes

This study investigates the frequency of use of electric toothbrushes in relation to time of possession and social background variables. A questionnaire was sent to 129 patients who had acquired an electric toothbrush within 36 months. They were patients at the Department of Clinical Periodontology and at general dental clinics in Orebro. Response rate was 96%. The brush was used daily by 62%, whereas 3% had ceased to use them. Frequency of use and encountered problems were related only for those who had had the brush for 3 years or more. Logistic regression on the frequency of use with the variables age, gender, marital status, education, time of possession, and received instruction showed no associations except in two cases. For patients at general dental clinics, only brush type, and for patients at the department, only encountered problems had explanatory value. The conclusion is that compliance level was high and unrelated to social factors.

Preventive behaviors as correlates of periodontal health status

OBJECTIVES

This investigation examined current practices of brushing, flossing, and periodic dental visits and their association with periodontal health status.

METHODS

Data were collected using face-to-face interviews and 40-minute in-home dental examinations with a probability sample of adults 18 years of age or older, having at least one tooth, and living in housing units in the Detroit tricounty area. Complete examinations were performed on 319 individuals.

RESULTS

On average, subjects reported brushing their teeth about twice a day. About one-third of the population reported flossing at least once a day. Loss of periodontal attachment was related to frequency of brushing while subjects who exhibited acceptable flossing ability had less plaque and calculus, shallower pocket depths, and less attachment loss. Subjects reporting a periodic dental visit at least once a year had less plaque, gingivitis, and calculus than subjects reporting less frequent visits. In regression analyses, brushing thoroughness, flossing ability and frequency, and dental visit frequency were predictors of lower plaque, gingivitis, and calculus scores. In turn, these scores were predictors of shallower pocket depths and less attachment loss.

CONCLUSIONS

Brushing, flossing, and periodic dental visits were correlated with better periodontal health. The behaviors appeared to be indirectly related to pocket depth and attachment loss through their associations with plaque, gingivitis, and calculus levels.

The relation of preventive dental behaviors to periodontal health status

Current recommendations for periodontal health maintenance emphasize toothbrushing, flossing and periodic dental checkups. The purposes of this study were to examine (1) the effects of these practices on periodontal health and (2) the relationships of demographic and socioeconomic variables with these behaviors and with periodontal health. Adults (n = 319) in the Detroit, Michigan tri-county area were asked how frequently they performed the 3 preventive behaviors. Levels of plaque, gingivitis, calculus, and periodontal attachment were then assessed during in-home dental examinations. There were no statistically significant differences in these health measures between those with acceptable and unacceptable brushing behavior. About 20% of the subjects reported acceptable flossing behavior, and these individuals had significantly less plaque and calculus than other participants. Over 3/4 of subjects reported having a dental checkup at least 1 x a year, and these persons were found to have significantly less plaque, gingivitis, and calculus compared to less frequent attenders. Acceptable brushing behavior was not associated with any particular demographic or socio-economic characteristic, while differences in acceptable flossing behavior were found among age groups. Frequencies of yearly dental checkups varied significantly within every demographic and socioeconomic characteristic.

Comparison of a manual and a new electric toothbrush for controlling plaque and gingivitis

In the present clinical trial, the effect on existing plaque and gingivitis of a new electric toothbrush (ET) was compared to that of a manual toothbrush (MT). 40 medical students, age 18-30 years, participated. Plaque index (PlI) and gingival index (GI) were recorded at 6 sites at all teeth. At baseline, a PlI and GI > 1 were required. The participants were at random allocated to a group using either ET or MT and were instructed only to use the assigned toothbrush, brushing each morning and evening for 2 min. No oral hygiene instruction was given. Re-examination was done after 1, 2 and 6 weeks. In the MT group, a minor decrease in mean PlI was found after 6 weeks (all sites: from 1.2 to 1.1, approximal sites: from 1.4 to 1.2). The corresponding figures in the ET group were: 1.2 to 0.6 and 1.4 to 0.8. After 6 weeks, the % of sites with visible plaque with MT was: 24% (all sites) and 30% (approximal sites) and with ET 8% and 9%, respectively. With MT, mean GI was unchanged after 6 weeks compared to baseline, whereas with ET, the changes were from 1.1 to 0.9 (all sites) and from 1.1 to 1.0 (approximal sites). The % of sites with GI score > or = 2 had not changed after 6 weeks with MT (all sites: 11%, approximal sites: 13%). With ET, these results were 3% and 4%, respectively.

Improved maintenance of plaque control by electrical toothbrushing in periodontitis patients with low compliance

Patients showing low compliance with oral hygiene were selected from a population of patients referred for specialist treatment of periodontitis. The patients selected did not show an acceptable plaque control in spite of a prolonged training period. Plaque around 40% of the tooth surfaces, documented over a period of 4 to 40 months of frequent information and instructions, was found in 10 patients around the age of 40 years with a marked overrepresentation of men. Substitution of the ordinary toothbrush with an electrical toothbrush using the same working principles, resulted in a decreased plaque score of approximately 10% maintained over a considerable time period (12-36 months). A common complaint among the patients was that the oral hygiene procedures were time-consuming and cumbersome. They considered the electrical toothbrush as simple and time saving. Even if these possibilities were not investigated, merely the patients' positive attitude may have made the efforts of tooth cleaning including the proximal cleaning more tolerable, thus improving the compliance. Contributing to the improved compliance might also have been the electrical toothbrush per se. The cleaning technique allows the patient to concentrate on aiming the bristles at the gingival sulcus, while the brush makes the movements. In conclusion, it should be worthwhile recommending an electrical toothbrush with simple working technique to low compliant periodontitis patients restricting the recalls to twice a year.

Relative effectiveness of various alternating frequencies of a power toothbrush

The influence on plaque-removing efficiency of the alternating frequency of a powered brush has never been established. In the present study, a mechanical brush was tested at various alternations per minute (F1 = 2100, F2 = 2500, F3 = 3500). A double-blind, randomized, triple crossover design was applied. After a plaque growth phase, the test brushes were used under supervision for 90 s and the remaining plaque scored. A ridit analysis yielded significant differences between F2 and F1/F3. Odds ratios and frequency distributions demonstrated a clinically meaningful advantage for F2. Subjective evaluation by the participants confirmed the positive performance of F2. The results can be generalized in 3 ways: (1) the alternating frequency of a power brush influences its effectiveness, (2) high frequencies are not generally superior, (3) the test brush has its optimal cleaning efficiency at F2, which does not necessarily need to be true for other brands. It seems imperative to determine the optimal frequency for any new brush in a controlled study.

Report of the Committee on Scientific Investigation of the American Academy of Restorative Dentistry

The growth in the dental literature continues to escalate, as evidenced by the publication of at least 326 new books in 1988 and 1989 and more than 20 new journals in 1989. There still appears to be undue emphasis on quantity instead of quality of research. This proliferation in the literature poses ever increasing difficulties to this Committee in filtering out the articles that are of particular interest to the members of the Academy and identifying those that are most likely to have a major impact on dental practice and service. The subjects covered include periodontics, caries and preventive dentistry, craniomandibular disorders, occlusion, pulp biology, ceramics, and restorative dental materials.