Electric toothbrush for biofilm control in individuals with Down syndrome: a crossover randomized clinical trial

Silva, Aryvelto Miranda; Miranda, Luis F.; Araujo, Ana S.; Júnior, Raimundo Rosendo Prado; Mendes, Regina Ferraz

doi:10.1590/1807-3107bor-2020.vol34.0057

Cited by 6 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Out of the 294 unique titles and abstracts there were two conflicts (<1%) scored by the two reviewers. In total, 16 publications 29,30,31–38,39–44 , describing 25 comparisons were included in this systematic review.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As the studies focused on the use of powered or manual toothbrushes, blinding those who brushed to the intervention was not possible. Based on a summary of the proposed criteria, the estimated potential ROB was low for eight studies [32][33][34][35][36]39,40,43 , moderate for five studies 29,30,37,38,41 , and high for three studies. 31,42,44…”

Section: Methodological Quality and Risk Of Bias Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Comparisons with participants brushed by a caregiver Thirteen comparisons described a total of 360 caregiver-brushed participants: 125 with PD in five comparisons [34][35][36]40 and 235 with ID in eight comparisons. 29,30,38,41,42,44 Study duration varied from a single brushing exercise 30,35 to 16 months. 42 The participants with PD as primary disability were children with CP in three of the five comparisons.…”

Section: 22mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Acceptance of a toothbrush can be considered conditional for its effectiveness. In the current review, only seven 29,30,[32][33][34]42,43 of the 16 included studies reported on the assessment of adverse effects of the PTB intervention.…”

Section: Acceptancementioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Powered or manual toothbrushing for people with physical or intellectual disabilities – A systematic review

Kalf‐Scholte

Valkenburg

Weijden

et al. 2023

Special Care in Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

AimsThe aim of this systematic review is to compare the effectiveness of a powered (PTB) and a manual (MTB) toothbrush in the hands of people with physical (PD) or intellectual (ID) disabilities or in the hands of a caregiver on parameters of plaque and gingival inflammation.MethodsMEDLINE‐PubMed, Cochrane‐CENTRAL and EMBASE databases were searched from initiation up to February 2022. The inclusion criteria were clinical trials conducted in people with PDs or IDs and comparing the effect of toothbrushing with a PTB to an MTB on plaque removal and gingival health. Data were extracted from the eligible studies and analyzed in four subgroups based firstly on the person performing the toothbrushing, either the participants or a caregiver, not a dental professional, and secondly on the main disability of the participants, either PD or ID. Heterogeneity and risk of bias were assessed, data were extracted from the eligible studies, and a descriptive analysis was performed.ResultsThe search yielded 294 unique papers; after selection 16 eligible publications describing 25 comparisons were included: 12 self‐brushing and 13 caregiver‐brushing comparisons. Considerable clinical and methodological heterogeneity was present; together with limited numerical data, not allowing for a meta‐analysis. The descriptive analysis showed, in the majority, no statistically significant difference between PTB and MTB. This applied to self‐brushing and caregiver‐brushing in both disability groups.ConclusionThis review demonstrates with a low level of evidence that a PTB compared to an MTB in the hands of people with PD or ID or in the hands of their caregivers results in no clinical difference in effectiveness on parameters of plaque and gingival inflammation.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodological Quality and Risk Of Bias Assessmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: 22mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Acceptancementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Powered or manual toothbrushing for people with physical or intellectual disabilities – A systematic review

Kalf‐Scholte

Valkenburg

Weijden

et al. 2023

Special Care in Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…No obstante, dichos resultados difieren de los de Silva y asociados 12 quienes reportan que el uso de CE o CM no afecta la cantidad de biopelícula dentaria removida en niños y adolescentes con SD, ni influye en su cooperación durante el procedimiento. Esta discrepancia sugiere que los infantes con SD y sus padres no fueron motivados adecuadamente hacia lograr una efectiva eliminación de placa.…”

Section: Wwwmedigraphicorgmxunclassified

Efectividad del cepillo dental eléctrico versus manual para la remoción de biofilm en pacientes con síndrome de Down.

Tavera¹,

Navarro²,

González³

2021

Revista De La Asociación Dental Mexicana

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Powered Toothbrushes: An Opportunity for Biofilm and Gingival Inflammation Control

Rösing

Garduño²,

Bussadori

et al. 2022

International Journal of Dentistry

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Electric toothbrush for biofilm control in individuals with Down syndrome: a crossover randomized clinical trial

Cited by 6 publications

References 37 publications

Powered or manual toothbrushing for people with physical or intellectual disabilities – A systematic review

Powered or manual toothbrushing for people with physical or intellectual disabilities – A systematic review

Efectividad del cepillo dental eléctrico versus manual para la remoción de biofilm en pacientes con síndrome de Down.

Powered Toothbrushes: An Opportunity for Biofilm and Gingival Inflammation Control

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About