Plaque removal efficacy of power and manual toothbrushes: a comparative study

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the plaque removal efficacy of a new oscillating/rotating/pulsating toothbrush [Oral-B Professional Care 8500 (PC 8500)] with two manual toothbrushes [Oral-B CrossAction Vitalizer (CAV) and Oral-B Indicator (IND), respectively]. The safety of the PC 8500 was also assessed. The study was a single-use, observer-masked, randomised 3 x 3 Latin square crossover design balanced for carryover effects. The enrolled subjects (n = 66) refrained from brushing for 23-25 h before each clinical examination. Plaque scores were recorded before and after brushing with the allocated toothbrush using the Turesky et al. modification of the Quigley and Hein plaque index. The safety was assessed evaluating the soft tissue conditions present after 30 days of the use of the PC 8500. The PC 8500 toothbrush was better in plaque removal efficacy compared with the CAV and IND brushes for full mouth and approximal surfaces (P < 0.01). When marginal surfaces were considered, the PC 8500 was significantly more effective than the IND (P < 0.01). No significant differences were found between PC 8500 and CAV (P > 0.05). The latter was shown to be significantly more effective than the IND at all tooth surfaces (P < 0.01). Safety examinations revealed the onset of only two small gingival abrasions after the 30-day use of the PC 8500. The PC 8500 toothbrush demonstrated to be more effective in plaque control than the CAV and IND in the full mouth and approximal surfaces and similar to the CAV in the marginal surfaces. The PC 8500 was safe to oral tissues in long-term use.

Safety of Oscillating‐Rotating Powered Brushes Compared to Manual Toothbrushes: A Systematic Review

“…No additional articles were identified for full‐text reading from a hand search of the references. Ultimately 35 articles (31 in vivo articles 15,19,32‐60 and four in vitro articles 61‐64 ) were determined to meet all eligibility criteria and were designated for data extraction and analysis. Publications by McCracken et al 47 and Heasman et al 58 presented the results of the same clinical trial but separately reported on either the gingival‐abrasion or brushing‐force outcomes, respectively; thus, this single trial is listed in the in vivo secondary results tables (Table 5) and the surrogate safety‐parameter tables (Tables 2 and 4).…”

The efficacy of powered toothbrushes following a brushing exercise: a systematic review

“…. The 3 scored domains are randomization, clearly defined eligibility criteria and blinding (Appendix S1) . When random allocation, defined eligibility criteria and blinding of examiner were present, the study was classified as having a low risk of bias.…”

The efficacy of manual toothbrushes following a brushing exercise: a systematic review

“…Therefore, three criteria were selected to estimate the potential risk of bias [Appendix S1 (20–75)]: (i) randomization, (ii) clearly defined inclusion criteria for recruitment and (iii) blinding to the examiner (blinding to the participant in a brushing study is not feasible). An aspect of the score list was given a ‘yes’ for an informative description of the item at issue for a study design that met the quality standard, a ‘no’ for an informative description and a study design that did not meet the quality standard and a ‘?’ for missing or insufficient information.…”