Long-term effect of the combined use of powered toothbrush and triclosan dentifrice in periodontal maintenance patients

Powered Toothbrushes: An Opportunity for Biofilm and Gingival Inflammation Control

The present review aimed at a broad investigation on the potential of powered as compared to manual toothbrushes in different aspects of clinical dentistry. Studies evaluating plaque and gingival inflammatory parameters were included, as well as those that investigated adverse effects. Emphasis was given separately to adults, youngsters, special-needs patients, and those under fixed orthodontic therapy. In general, comparisons favored powered toothbrushes. In summary, approximately 68% of the included studies, in terms of plaque/gingival inflammation in adults, presented better results for powered toothbrushes. In children and special-needs populations, approximately 40% of the included studies favored powered toothbrushes for plaque/gingival inflammation, and none favored manual ones. In orthodontic individuals, 50% of the studies also demonstrated a better effect of powered toothbrushes on plaque and gingival inflammation. All included studies that assessed adverse events did not demonstrate a difference in these effects when comparing manual vs. powered toothbrushes. It is concluded that the use of powered toothbrushes is an opportunity to enhance patterns of plaque control and associated gingival inflammation.

A two-week single-group longitudinal test of a new sonic-powered toothbrush simulating the 'bass brushing technique' with tapered bristles on the brush head for reduction of dental plaque and gingivitis

OBJECTIVE

To investigate the effect of a new powered toothbrush with tapered bristles on the brush head for the reduction of dental plaque and gingivitis.

METHODS

This was a single-centre, single-group, longitudinal clinical trial. Thirty-two participants who were typical manual toothbrush users were recruited and assigned the sonic-powered brush. Interviews were arranged on the 1^st , 4^th , and 15^th days which represented the baseline (T₁ ), middle (T₂ ) and final (T₃ ) time points, respectively. At each visit, the plaque index (PlI), gingival index (GI), bleeding on probing (BOP) and probing depth (PD) were recorded for the Ramfjord index teeth, gingival crevicular fluid(GCF) samples were collected and the proportions of eight periodontal pathogenic bacteria were analysed. Repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used for comparisons at different time points.

RESULTS

PlI was significantly reduced by 41.67% from T₁ to T₂ (p<0.001) and decreased by 18.57% from T₂ to T₃ (p=0.003). GI also varied significantly from T₁ to T₂ (p=0.018) and T₁ to T₃ (p=0.037). A 35.86% reduction in the BOP percentage occurred after using the sonic-powered toothbrush for 3 days (p=0.001). However, no significant difference was observed in the mean values of PD at different examination intervals (p=0.529). There was no significant difference in the proportions of bacteria between T₁ and T₃ (p>0.05).

CONCLUSION

This research demonstrated the efficacy of the sonic-powered brush handle together with tapered bristles on the brush in reducing plaque and gingivitis within a short time period.

Mechanical plaque removal of periodontal maintenance patients: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

AIM

This systematic review synthesizes the available clinical evidence concerning efficacy of mechanical oral hygiene devices in periodontal maintenance patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Three databases were searched up to October 2019 for clinical trials conducted in adult patients in periodontal maintenance which evaluated the effect of toothbrushes or an interdental device on plaque removal and parameters of periodontal diseases. Descriptive analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) were performed.

RESULTS

Sixteen eligible publications, including 17 relevant comparisons, were retrieved. Four out of five comparisons found no clinical difference between a manual and power toothbrush. Of the interdental cleaning devices, the interdental brushes (IDBs) reduced plaque scores more effectively than a manual toothbrush alone. For the oral irrigator, two out of three comparisons indicated a positive effect on gingivitis scores, and probing pocket depth. The NMA demonstrated that for plaque removal the adjuvant use of IDBs was significantly more effective than the manual toothbrush alone. For the reduction of gingival inflammation, no product ranked higher than the manual toothbrush.

CONCLUSION

Due to the scarcity of studies that met the inclusion criteria for each of the oral hygiene devices and the low certainty of the resultant evidence, no strong "evidence-based" conclusion can be drawn concerning any specific oral hygiene device for patient self-care in periodontal maintenance.

Contemporary practices for mechanical oral hygiene to prevent periodontal disease

It is well established that dental plaque on teeth leads to gingivitis and periodontitis, and that several mechanical and chemical methods of plaque control can prevent gingivitis. The aim of the current review is to summarize and synthesize the available scientific evidence supporting practices for mechanical oral hygiene to prevent periodontal diseases. Evidence for contemporary practices of mechanical oral hygiene to prevent periodontal disease relies on studies of gingivitis patients. General recommendations concerning the ideal oral hygiene devices and procedures are still inconclusive. However, toothbrushing and interdental cleaning remain the mainstays of prevention of periodontal diseases. The primary approach requires individually tailored instruction for implementation of a systematic oral hygiene regimen.

Supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) for maintaining the dentition in adults treated for periodontitis

BACKGROUND

Periodontitis is a bacterially-induced, chronic inflammatory disease that destroys the connective tissues and bone that support teeth. Active periodontal treatment aims to reduce the inflammatory response, primarily through eradication of bacterial deposits. Following completion of treatment and arrest of inflammation, supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) is employed to reduce the probability of re-infection and progression of the disease; to maintain teeth without pain, excessive mobility or persistent infection in the long term, and to prevent related oral diseases.According to the American Academy of Periodontology, SPT should include all components of a typical dental recall examination, and importantly should also include periodontal re-evaluation and risk assessment, supragingival and subgingival removal of bacterial plaque and calculus, and re-treatment of any sites showing recurrent or persistent disease. While the first four points might be expected to form part of the routine examination appointment for periodontally healthy patients, the inclusion of thorough periodontal evaluation, risk assessment and subsequent treatment - normally including mechanical debridement of any plaque or calculus deposits - differentiates SPT from routine care.Success of SPT has been reported in a number of long-term, retrospective studies. This review aimed to assess the evidence available from randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) in the maintenance of the dentition of adults treated for periodontitis.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 8 May 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2017, Issue 5), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 8 May 2017), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 8 May 2017). 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 when searching the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating SPT versus monitoring only or alternative approaches to mechanical debridement; SPT alone versus SPT with adjunctive interventions; different approaches to or providers of SPT; and different time intervals for SPT delivery.We excluded split-mouth studies where we considered there could be a risk of contamination.Participants must have completed active periodontal therapy at least six months prior to randomisation and be enrolled in an SPT programme. Trials must have had a minimum follow-up period of 12 months.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened search results to identify studies for inclusion, assessed the risk of bias in included studies and extracted study data. When possible, we calculated mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous variables. Two review authors assessed the quality of evidence for each comparison and outcome using GRADE criteria.

MAIN RESULTS

We included four trials involving 307 participants aged 31 to 85 years, who had been previously treated for moderate to severe chronic periodontitis. Three studies compared adjuncts to mechanical debridement in SPT versus debridement only. The adjuncts were local antibiotics in two studies (one at high risk of bias and one at low risk) and photodynamic therapy in one study (at unclear risk of bias). One study at high risk of bias compared provision of SPT by a specialist versus general practitioner. We did not identify any RCTs evaluating the effects of SPT versus monitoring only, or of providing SPT at different time intervals, or that compared the effects of mechanical debridement using different approaches or technologies.No included trials measured our primary outcome 'tooth loss'; however, studies evaluated signs of inflammation and potential periodontal disease progression, including bleeding on probing (BoP), clinical attachment level (CAL) and probing pocket depth (PPD).There was no evidence of a difference between SPT delivered by a specialist versus a general practitioner for BoP or PPD at 12 months (very low-quality evidence). This study did not measure CAL or adverse events.Due to heterogeneous outcome reporting, it was not possible to combine data from the two studies comparing mechanical debridement with or without the use of adjunctive local antibiotics. Both studies found no evidence of a difference between groups at 12 months (low to very low-quality evidence). There were no adverse events in either study.The use of adjunctive photodynamic therapy did not demonstrate evidence of benefit compared to mechanical debridement only (very low-quality evidence). Adverse events were not measured.The quality of the evidence is low to very low for these comparisons. Future research is likely to change the findings, therefore the results should be interpreted with caution.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Overall, there is insufficient evidence to determine the superiority of different protocols or adjunctive strategies to improve tooth maintenance during SPT. No trials evaluated SPT versus monitoring only. The evidence available for the comparisons evaluated is of low to very low quality, and hampered by dissimilarities in outcome reporting. More trials using uniform definitions and outcomes are required to address the objectives of this review.

Comparison of manual toothbrushes with different bristle designs in terms of cleaning efficacy and potential role on gingival recession

OBJECTIVE

The aim was to compare the efficacy of plaque control and potential effects on gingival recession of the toothbrushes with angled and straight bristles.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 40 healthy dental students (25 females and 15 males; age range: 23-25 years) participated and two study groups were constituted. Participants were randomly distributed into two groups to use either angled or standard design manual tooth brushes with soft bristles. Oral hygiene indicators and soft tissue levels were monitored for 6 months. Plaque index, gingival index (GI), probing depth, clinical attachment level, and bleeding on probing were measured at six sites. Vertical recession (VR) and horizontal recession (HR) were also recorded. All measurements were repeated at 3 and 6 months.

RESULTS

Plaque scores were reduced significantly at 6 months compared to baseline in both groups (P < 0.05 and P < 0.005 in criss-cross and standard design brushes, respectively). Mean GI scores of the criss-cross design were reduced significantly at 6 months (P < 0.05). Inter-group comparisons revealed that gingival recession (GR) values were not statistically significant (P > 0.05) at baseline, 3 and 6 months suggesting no pronounced impact of bristle design in terms of GR (VR = 0.596, HR = 0.572; VR = 0.884, HR = 0.572; VR = 0.884, HR = 0.572 in the groups).

CONCLUSIONS

Bristle design has little impact on plaque removal capacity of a toothbrush. Both designs are safe enough to prevent GR as long as soft bristle material is used.

Triclosan/copolymer containing toothpastes for oral health

BACKGROUND

Periodontal disease and dental caries are highly prevalent oral diseases that can lead to pain and discomfort, oral hygiene and aesthetic problems, and eventually tooth loss, all of which can be costly to treat and are a burden to healthcare systems. Triclosan is an antibacterial agent with low toxicity, which, along with a copolymer for aiding retention, can be added to toothpastes to reduce plaque and gingivitis (inflammation of the gums). It is important that these additional ingredients do not interfere with the anticaries effect of the fluoride present in toothpastes, and that they are safe.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of triclosan/copolymer containing fluoride toothpastes, compared with fluoride toothpastes, for the long-term control of caries, plaque and gingivitis in children and adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 19 August 2013), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 7), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 19 August 2013), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 19 August 2013), and the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (clinicaltrials.gov) (to 19 August 2013). We applied no restrictions regarding language or date of publication in the searches of the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) assessing the effects triclosan/copolymer containing toothpastes on oral health.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed the search results against the inclusion criteria for this review, extracted data and carried out risk of bias assessments. We attempted to contact study authors for missing information or clarification when feasible. We combined sufficiently similar studies in meta-analyses using random-effects models when there were at least four studies (fixed-effect models when fewer than four studies), reporting mean differences (MD) for continuous data and risk ratios (RR) for dichotomous data.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 30 studies, analysing 14,835 participants, in this review. We assessed 10 studies (33%) as at low risk of bias, nine (30%) as at high risk of bias and 11 (37%) as unclear. Plaque Compared with control, after six to seven months of use, triclosan/copolymer toothpaste reduced plaque by 0.47 on a 0 to 5 scale (MD -0.47, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.60 to -0.34, 20 studies, 2675 participants, moderate-quality evidence). The control group mean was 2.17, representing a 22% reduction in plaque. After six to seven months of use, it also reduced the proportion of sites scoring 3 to 5 on a 0 to 5 scale by 0.15 (MD -0.15, 95% CI -0.20 to -0.10, 13 studies, 1850 participants, moderate-quality evidence). The control group mean was 0.37, representing a 41% reduction in plaque severity. Gingivitis After six to nine months of use, triclosan/copolymer toothpaste reduced inflammation by 0.27 on a 0 to 3 scale (MD -0.27, 95% CI -0.33 to -0.21, 20 studies, 2743 participants, moderate-quality evidence). The control group mean was 1.22, representing a 22% reduction in inflammation. After six to seven months of use, it reduced the proportion of bleeding sites (i.e. scoring 2 or 3 on the 0 to 3 scale) by 0.13 (MD -0.13, 95% CI -0.17 to -0.08, 15 studies, 1998 participants, moderate-quality evidence). The control group mean was 0.27, representing a 48% reduction in bleeding. Periodontitis After 36 months of use, there was no evidence of a difference between triclosan/copolymer toothpaste and control in the development of periodontitis (attachment loss) (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.67 to 1.27, one study, 480 participants, low-quality evidence). Caries After 24 to 36 months of use, triclosan/copolymer toothpaste slightly reduced coronal caries when using the decayed and filled surfaces (DFS) index (MD -0.16, 95% CI -0.31 to -0.02, four studies, 9692 participants, high-quality evidence). The control group mean was 3.44, representing a 5% reduction in coronal caries. After 36 months of use, triclosan/copolymer toothpaste probably reduced root caries (MD -0.31, 95% CI -0.39 to -0.23, one study, 1357 participants, moderate-quality evidence). Calculus After six months of use, triclosan/copolymer toothpaste may have reduced the mean total calculus per participant by 2.12 mm (MD -2.12 mm, 95% CI -3.39 to -0.84, two studies, 415 participants, low-quality evidence). The control group mean was 14.61 mm, representing a 15% reduction in calculus. Adverse effects There were no data available for meta-analysis regarding adverse effects, but 22 studies (73%) reported that there were no adverse effects caused by either the experimental or control toothpaste.There was considerable heterogeneity present in the meta-analyses for plaque, gingivitis and calculus. Plaque and gingivitis showed such consistent results that it did not affect our conclusions, but the reader may wish to interpret the results with more caution.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There was moderate-quality evidence showing that toothpastes containing triclosan/copolymer, in addition to fluoride, reduced plaque, gingival inflammation and gingival bleeding when compared with fluoride toothpastes without triclosan/copolymer. These reductions may or may not be clinically important, and are evident regardless of initial plaque and gingivitis levels, or whether a baseline oral prophylaxis had taken place or not. High-quality evidence showed that triclosan/copolymer toothpastes lead to a small reduction in coronal caries. There was weaker evidence to show that triclosan/copolymer toothpastes may have reduced root caries and calculus, but insufficient evidence to show whether or not they prevented periodontitis. There do not appear to be any serious safety concerns regarding the use of triclosan/copolymer toothpastes in studies up to three years in duration.

Safety of oscillating-rotating powered brushes compared to manual toothbrushes: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Oscillating-rotating power toothbrushes have been proven clinically efficacious. To our knowledge, a comprehensive review of all clinical and laboratory investigations solely comparing the safety of these toothbrushes to the standard of care (i.e., manual toothbrushes) has not been published. The aim of this systematic review is to examine the literature concerning the relative soft and/or hard tissue safety outcomes with the use of oscillating-rotating toothbrushes compared to manual toothbrushes.

METHODS

With the use of electronic databases of the National Library of Medicine (PubMed-MEDLINE), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane-CENTRAL), and the Excerpta Medical Database (EMBASE), a search of in vivo and in vitro trials through May 2010 was conducted to identify appropriate studies that evaluated the effects of an oscillating-rotating power toothbrush compared to a manual toothbrush with respect to soft and/or hard tissue safety. Eligible trials incorporated a safety evaluation as a primary or secondary outcome parameter (i.e., gingival recession, observed/reported adverse events, and hard tissue effects) or used a surrogate parameter (i.e., stained gingival abrasion and brushing force) to assess safety. Data extraction for the primary- and surrogate-measure safety studies, which included mean values and SDs when available, and a meta-analysis of the gingival recession data were performed.

RESULTS

Independent screening of the titles and abstracts of 697 PubMed-MEDLINE, 436 Cochrane-CENTRAL, and 664 EMBASE papers resulted in 35 publications that met the eligibility criteria. The mean change in gingival recession was not significantly different among toothbrush groups in the two selected trials with safety as a primary outcome (weighted mean difference: 0.03). A meta-analysis of the five trials that evaluated safety with a surrogate parameter was not possible; however, there were no significant between-group differences at the study end in any trial. A descriptive analysis of the 24 selected studies assessing safety as a secondary outcome revealed few brushing-related adverse events. The heterogeneity in objectives and methodology of the four in vitro trials that met the eligibility criteria precluded generalization of the results.

CONCLUSION

A large body of published research in the preceding 2 decades has consistently shown oscillating-rotating toothbrushes to be safe compared to manual toothbrushes, demonstrating that these power toothbrushes do not pose a clinically relevant concern to hard or soft tissues.

Prevention and therapeutic approaches to gingival inflammation

The most important preventive and therapeutic effort to reduce inflammation is to remove the dental plaque thoroughly. Oral self-care is thus of crucial importance to achieve and maintain oral health. There is a scarcity of scientific evidence on the most effective models for behavioural change aimed to improve oral hygiene. There is a need for randomized-controlled trials, based on behavioural sciences and performed with great methodological rigour, to investigate the usefulness of these proposed behavioural changes. Oral hygiene regimens for patients with natural teeth as well as dental implants should include brushing twice daily, inter-dental cleaning once daily and rinsing with efficient rinses as an adjunct to mechanical infection control. Power toothbrushes are preferable as they are more effective than manual toothbrushes. Inter-dental brushes seem to be most effective and useful for inter-dental cleaning. Scaling and root planing is effective in reducing inflammation and probing depths in patients with periodontitis.