A clinical study to compare the efficacy of 2 electric toothbrushes in plaque removal

Evaluation of dental plaque reduction using microcurrent-emitting toothbrushes in orthodontic patients: a randomized, double-blind, crossover clinical trial

This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of microcurrent-emitting toothbrushes (MCTs) and ordinary toothbrushes in reducing the dental plaque index (PI) and dental caries activity among orthodontic patients. The evaluation was performed using a crossover study design involving 22 orthodontic patients randomly assigned to the MCT or ordinary toothbrush groups. The participants used the designated toothbrush for 4 weeks and had a 1-week wash-out time before crossover to the other toothbrush. PI (Attin's index) and dental caries activity were measured at baseline and at the end of each 4-week period. Additionally, patients completed questionnaires to assess patient satisfaction for "freshness in mouth" and "cleansing degree." The results showed that the MCT group had a significant reduction in PI (p = 0.009), whereas the ordinary toothbrush group did not (p = 0.595). There was no significant difference in the dental caries activity between the two groups (p > 0.05). Patient satisfaction assessment revealed that 65% patients in the MCT group had more than "fair" experience of freshness, in contrast to 50% of patients in the ordinary toothbrush group. Satisfaction with cleansing degree was similar in both groups. Overall, these findings suggest that MCTs are more effective in reducing dental PI than ordinary toothbrushes.

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.

Effects of easy-to-perform procedures to reduce bacterial colonization with Streptococcus mutans and Staphylococcus aureus on toothbrushes

It is well known that dental caries and periodontitis are the consequence of bacterial colonization and biofilm formation on the enamel surface. The continuous presence of bacterial biofilms on the tooth surface results in demineralization of the tooth enamel and induces an inflammatory reaction of the surrounding gums (gingivitis). The retention and survival of microorganisms on toothbrushes pose a threat of recontamination especially for certain patients at risk for systemic infections originating from the oral cavity, e.g., after T-cell depleted bone marrow transplantation. Thus, the effects of different decolonization schemes on bacterial colonization of toothbrushes were analyzed, in order to demonstrate their applicability to reduce the likelihood of (auto-)reinfections. Toothbrushes were intentionally contaminated with standardized suspensions of Streptococcus mutans or Staphylococcus aureus. Afterwards, the toothbrushes were exposed to rinsing under distilled water, rinsing and drying for 24 h, 0.2% chlorhexidine-based decolonization, or ultraviolet (UV) radiation. The remaining colony forming units were compared with freshly contaminated positive controls. Each experiment was nine-fold repeated. Bi-factorial variance analysis was performed; significance was accepted at P < 0.05. All tested procedures led to a significant reduction of bacteral colonization irrespective of the toothbrush model, the brush head type, or the acitivity state. Chlorhexidine-based decolonization was shown to be superior to rinsing and slightly superior to rinsing and drying for 24 h, while UV radiation was similarly effective as chlorhexidine. UV radiation was slightly less prone to species-dependent limitations of its decolonizing effects by bristle thickness of toothbrushes than chlorhexidin. Reduction of bacterial colonization of toothbrushes might reduce the risk of maintaining bacterial infections of the upper respiratory tract. Accordingly, respective procedures are advisable, particularly as they are cheap and easy to perform.

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.

Approximal brush head used on a powered toothbrush

AIM

This study was designed to test whether the approximal efficacy of a powered toothbrush (Braun Oral-B 3D Plaque Remover) can be improved when a pointed-shaped brush head (PBH) specifically designed for these approximal areas is used as compared with the standard cup-shaped brush head (CBH).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Forty non-dental students were included. They all received the powered toothbrush and two different brush heads (CBH+PBH). Instructions were given to use each brush head twice every day (2 min. with the CBH followed by 1 min. with the PBH). Two weeks later they received an appointment for the first experiment (Exp 1), prior to which they abstained from all oral hygiene procedures for 48 h. Plaque was assessed at 6 sites/tooth. Next, the dental hygienist brushed for 2 min. (30 s/quadrant) with the CBH. Plaque was scored again. Subsequently, the dental hygienist brushed the approximal areas for another minute: in two randomly selected contra-lateral quadrants for 30 s with the CBH and in the opposing quadrants for 30 s with the PBH. The next approximal plaque was scored a third time. After 2-3 weeks, Exp 2 was carried out comparable to Exp 1; only this time the panelists brushed themselves.

RESULTS

Exp 1 showed approximal plaque scores at the baseline of 1.70 and 1.72 and at post-brushing 0.21 and 0.26 for the CBH + PBH and CBH only, respectively (p<0.05). The additional increase in approximal plaque reduction after 30 s of brushing with PBH was 22% and for the CBH 19% (p<0.05). Exp 2 showed approximal plaque scores at baseline of 1.76 and 1.74 and post-brushing of 0.21 and 0.24 for the CBH+PBH and the CBH, respectively. The additional approximal plaque reduction of 30 s brushing with PBH was 19% and 18% with the CBH (no significant difference).

DISCUSSION/CONCLUSION

An additional 1 min. showed minor differences (1-3%) between brush heads. The effect of the 1 min. extra brushing (+/-18%) itself was much larger. It seems therefore beneficial to advise the patient to brush longer. A second different brush head may stimulate to do so.

Clinical development and evolution in plaque removal performance of a battery powered toothbrush

BACKGROUND AND AIM

There is growing evidence that the new generation of electric toothbrushes are more effective than manual toothbrushes. The primary aim of these studies was to compare, as an indication of the stage of development, the plaque removal properties of a prototype battery powered toothbrush with an established product. A secondary aim was to utilise the data to appraise plaque accumulation together with the patterns of removal.

METHOD

The three studies presented used the same, single-examiner, randomised, single-blind cross-over design involving up to 24 healthy volunteers. The prototype brushes, E6500 versions s1, s2 and s3 and E8000 with head speeds of 6500 and 8000 oscillations/min were compared with a similar design marketed product (MP) with a head speed of 8800 oscillations/min. All brushes had circular brush heads with oscillating rotating actions. Subjects accumulated plaque over a 4-day period during which no oral hygiene measures were performed. On day 4, the plaque accumulation was scored by index. Subjects then used the allocated toothbrush for 2 min. This was followed by a re-scoring of the remaining plaque.

RESULTS

Studies 1 and 2 showed significantly less plaque removed by prototype E6500 (s1) and prototype E6500 (s2), respectively, than by MP. In study 3, prototype E8000 removed similar quantities of plaque to MP (approximately 65%). In contrast prototype E6500 (s3) only removed 60% of accrued plaque. Differences, however, did not reach statistical significance.

CONCLUSIONS

The study methodology was appropriate to distinguish between the study toothbrushes and was furthermore able to establish a level of comparability for one of the prototype modifications with a similar MP.

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.

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.