Plaque removal with the uninstructed use of electric toothbrushes: comparison with a manual brush and toothpaste slurry

The efficacy of powered toothbrushes: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

AIM

This systematic review and network meta-analysis synthesizes the available clinical evidence concerning efficacy with respect to plaque scores following a brushing action with oscillating-rotating (OR) or high-frequency sonic (HFS) powered toothbrushes (PTB) compared with a manual toothbrush (MTB) as control.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Databases were searched up to 1 August 2021, for clinical trials that evaluated the efficacy of a PTB with OR or HFS technology compared with an MTB on plaque removal after a single-brushing action and conducted with healthy adult patients. Meta-analysis (MA) and a network meta-analysis (NMA) were performed.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight eligible publications, including 56 relevant comparisons, were retrieved. The overall NMA results for the mean post-brushing score showed a statistically significant difference for the comparison between an OR PTB and an MTB (SMD = -0.43; 95% CI [-0.696;-0.171]). The change in plaque score data showed a significant effect of a PTB over an MTB and OR over HFS. Based on ranking, the OR PTB was highest, followed by the HFS PTB and the MTB.

CONCLUSION

Within the limitations of the present study design, based on the outcome following a single-brushing action, it can be concluded that for dental plaque removal, there is a high certainty for a small effect of a PTB over an MTB. This supports the recommendation to use a powered toothbrush for daily plaque removal. There is moderate certainty for a very small benefit for the use of a powered toothbrush with an OR over an HFS mode of action.

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.

How effective is a powered toothbrush as compared to a manual toothbrush? A systematic review and meta-analysis of single brushing exercises

Objectives

In adult participants, what is, following a single brushing exercise, the efficacy of a powered toothbrush (PTB) as compared to a manual toothbrush (MTB) on plaque removal?

Methods

MEDLINE‐PubMed and Cochrane‐CENTRAL were searched from inception to February 2019. The inclusion criteria were (randomized) controlled clinical trials conducted in human subjects ≥18 years of age, in good general health and without periodontitis, orthodontic treatment, implants and/or removable prosthesis. Papers evaluating a PTB compared with a MTB in a single brushing exercise were included. When plaque scores were assessed according to the Quigley‐Hein plaque index (Q&HPI) or the Rustogi modified Navy plaque index (RMNPI). From the eligible studies, data were extracted. A meta‐analysis and subanalysis for brands and mode of action being oscillating‐rotating (OR) and side‐to‐side (SS) were performed when feasible.

Results

Independent screening of 3450 unique papers resulted in 17 eligible publications presenting 36 comparisons. In total, 28 comparisons assessed toothbrushing efficacy according to the Q&HPI and eight comparisons used the RMNPI. Results showed a significant effect in favour of the PTB. The difference of Means (DiffM) was −0.14 (P < 0.001; 95%CI [−0.19; −0.09]) for the Q&HPI and −0.10 (P < 0.001; 95%CI [−0.14; −0.06]) for the RMNPI, respectively. The subanalysis on the OR mode of action showed a DiffM −0.16 (P < 0.001; 95%CI [−0.22, −0.10]) for the Q&HPI. For the SS mode of action using RMNPI, the DiffM showed −0.10 (P < 0.001; 95%CI [−0.15; −0.05]). The subanalysis for brands showed for the P&G OR PTB using the Q&HPI a DiffM of −0.15 (P < 0.001; 95%CI [−0.22; −0.08]) and the Colgate SS for RMNPI showed a DiffM of −0.15 (P < 0.001; 95%CI [−0.18; −0.12]).

Conclusion

There is moderate certainty that the PTB was more effective than the MTB with respect to plaque removal following a single brushing exercise independent of the plaque index scale that was used.

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.

The Additional Effect of a Dentifrice on the Instant Efficacy of Toothbrushing: A Crossover Study

BACKGROUND

Inconclusive evidence exists in the literature with regard to the additional (beneficial) mechanical effect of a dentifrice on plaque removal. A previous split-mouth study found that a dentifrice did not contribute to plaque removal. Because of limitations of the split-mouth model, a crossover design was used to evaluate whether a commercially available dentifrice had an additional effect on mechanical plaque removal during manual toothbrushing.

METHODS

Thirty-six subjects were given a manual toothbrush and a standard dentifrice. After a 48-hour plaque accumulation, subjects brushed under supervision with or without a dentifrice (total time of 2 minutes) in a 2 x 2 crossover design.

RESULTS

Plaque reductions were 50% with and 56% without the use of dentifrice. This 6% difference was statistically significant (P = 0.034). Explorative analysis showed that brushing without a dentifrice was more effective in removing plaque on the approximal surfaces.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of a dentifrice did not contribute to mechanical plaque removal during manual toothbrushing. It seemed that the mechanical action provided by the toothbrush was the main factor in the plaque-removing process.

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.

A clinical study to assess the ability of a powered toothbrush to remove chlorhexidine/tea dental stain

AIM

A single-center, single-blind, two-way crossover study was performed to compare the effects of an electric powered toothbrush with a conventional manual toothbrush at removing chlorhexidine/tea tooth staining.

METHODS

This study used 24 subjects. During the week before the study, the subjects received a prophylaxis to remove all staining, plaque and calculus deposits. On the Monday of the following week, subjects returned to the clinic to receive a further prophylaxis. Under direct supervision, they then rinsed with a 0.2% chlorhexidine mouthrinse, immediately followed by a rinse with a warm black tea solution. This cycle was repeated hourly eight times throughout the day and on the following days until the Friday. Throughout this period, volunteers omitted all other forms of oral hygiene except rinsing with the chlorhexidine mouthwash. On the Friday, the level of stain was assessed both prior to and immediately after brushing with the allocated brush with toothpaste for 1 min. This was done in an adjoining room (out of sight of the clinical scorer). Subjects were then instructed to use the toothbrush at home according to their normal oral hygiene practices. On the following Friday, subjects returned to the clinic when the stain present was re-assessed. Each subject received a thorough prophylaxis to remove all plaque calculus and staining before starting the second period of the study and again on completion of the study.

RESULTS

The study showed relatively little difference between the ability of the two brushes to remove stain at a single test brushing. However, there was some evidence that the powered brush was more effective than the manual brush in minimising stain level during the home use period, overall and in particular for gingival crescent sites.

CONCLUSIONS

This study has suggested that the powered brush may become more effective at reducing dental stain, the longer the brush is used under normal home conditions.

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.

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.