Comparative Plaque Removal Efficacy of Three Manual Toothbrushes.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine the safety and plaque-reducing effectiveness of a newly designed manual toothbrush compared to that of a leading marketed toothbrush and a reference standard manual toothbrush control. METHODS: This examiner-blind, randomized, single-use study used a cross-over design. Sixty-eight qualifying male and female subjects were randomly assigned either an Arm & Hammer™ Truly Radiant™ Deep Clean manual toothbrush (TR), a Colgate® Extra Clean manual toothbrush (C), or an ADA reference standard manual toothbrush (SM) according to one of three computer-generated sequences. Following instruction in the use of their assigned brush, subjects brushed at home with a standard fluoride toothpaste twice daily for two minutes during a one-week familiarization period. At the end of this period, the subjects returned to the study site after refraining from oral hygiene for 12-16 hours and from eating and drinking for four hours. Plaque was disclosed and scored using the Rustogi Modification of the Navy Plaque Index (RMNPI). Subjects brushed under supervision with their assigned toothbrush for two minutes in a room without mirrors and apart from the dental examiner, after which plaque was disclosed and rescored. They were then given one of the alternate toothbrushes according to their assigned sequence, and the familiarization routine and evaluations were repeated until each of the subjects used each of the three brushes. Within-treatment and between-treatment whole mouth RMNPI scores and scores at each of twelve subsets of sites were analyzed using paired t-tests and appropriate ANCOVA models, respectively. RESULTS: Within-group analyses showed that all three toothbrushes produced statistically significant reductions from the pre-brushing baseline in whole mouth RMNPI scores (p < 0.0001), with respective reductions of 68.2%, 58.3%, and 48.5% for TR, C, and SM. Between-group analyses showed that TR was significantly more effective (p < 0.0001) than C and SM with 16.4% and 40.3% greater reductions in whole mouth scores, respectively. TR also produced statistically significant greater reductions (p < 0.0001) than the other two manual brushes at each of the twelve subsets of sites examined, with the greatest differences at the lingual and gingival sites, especially sites presenting difficulty in access, such as those in the posterior lingual gingival region. CONCLUSIONS: While all three manual toothbrushes produced significant supragingival plaque reductions with a single use, the Truly Radiant Deep Clean brush was significantly more effective than the Colgate Extra Clean and ADA manual brushes in reducing wholemouth plaque, as well as plaque at all subsets of sites analyzed including difficult-to-reach areas.

A six-week clinical evaluation of the plaque and gingivitis efficacy of an oscillating-rotating power toothbrush with a novel brush head utilizing angled CrissCross bristles versus a sonic toothbrush.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of an oscillating-rotating power toothbrush with a novel brush head incorporating angled CrissCross bristles (Oral-B Triumph with SmartGuide with Oral-B CrossAction brush head) versus a sonic toothbrush (Sonicare DiamondClean) for plaque and gingivitis reduction over a six-week period. METHODS: This was a single-center, randomized, examiner-blind, two-treatment, parallel group study involving 65 subjects per group. Subjects presenting with mild-to-moderate gingivitis at Baseline were randomly assigned to either the oscillating-rotating brush or the sonic brush. They were instructed to use their assigned toothbrush and a standard fluoride dentifrice for two minutes twice daily at home for six weeks. Gingivitis and plaque were assessed at Baseline and Week 6 using the Modified Gingival Index (MGI), Gingival Bleeding Index (GBI), and Rustogi Modified Navy Plaque Index (RMNPI). Data were analyzed using an Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA), with baseline as the covariate. Subjects also completed a consumer perception questionnaire to evaluate their brushing experience. RESULTS: One-hundred and thirty subjects were enrolled in the study and randomized to treatment. Sixty-four subjects per group completed the trial. Both brushes produced statistically significant reductions in gingivitis and plaque measures at Week 6 relative to Baseline (p < 0.001 for all). The oscillating-rotating brush with the novel brush head demonstrated statistically significantly greater reductions in all gingivitis and plaque measures compared to the sonic toothbrush. The benefits for the oscillating-rotating brush over the sonic brush were 32.6% for gingivitis, 35.4% for gingival bleeding, 32% for number of bleeding sites, 22% for whole mouth plaque, 24.2% for gingival margin plaque, and 33.3% for approximal plaque (p < or = 0.001 for all measures except gingival margin plaque, where p = 0.018). Analysis of the consumer perception questionnaire results showed subjects using the oscillating-rotating brush rated it higher for overall use experience and key attributes related to cleaning, gentleness, and brush head shape/size versus subjects in the sonic brush group. There were no adverse events reported or observed for either brush. CONCLUSION: This six-week randomized, examiner-blind, comparative clinical study showed the oscillating-rotating toothbrush, with a novel brush head incorporating angled CrissCross bristles, was significantly better than an advanced sonic power toothbrush at reducing gingival inflammation and bleeding, as well as reducing whole mouth plaque, plaque along the gumline, and in the approximal regions.

Comparative plaque removal efficacy of a new children's powered toothbrush and a manual toothbrush.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the plaque removal effectiveness of a new children's powered toothbrush and compare it to that of a manual brush. METHODS: This examiner-blind, randomized study used a cross-over design. One-hundred and five qualifying male and female subjects (52 ages 8-12 and 53 ages 13-17) were randomly assigned either the powered brush (Spinbrush GLOBRUSH) or a manual toothbrush (Oral-B Indicator 30 Compact Soft Toothbrush) and instructed to brush at home with a standard fluoride toothpaste twice daily for two minutes during a one-week familiarization period. At the end of this period, the subjects returned to the study site after refraining from oral hygiene for twenty-four hours and from eating and drinking for four hours. Plaque was scored using the Rustogi Modification of the Navy Plaque Index, subjects brushed under supervision with their assigned toothbrush for two minutes, and plaque was rescored. They were then given the alternate toothbrush and the familiarization routine and evaluation process were repeated. RESULTS: Within-group analysis showed that both toothbrushes produced statistically significant reductions from the pre-brushing baseline in whole mouth and regional plaque scores (p < 0.0001), with respective whole mouth reductions of 73.3% and 61.8% for the powered brush and the manual brush. Between-group analyses showed that the powered brush produced a statistically significantly greater plaque reduction than the manual brush, both whole mouth (12.8%, p < 0.0001) and at all subset sites, including difficult-to-reach areas such as the posterior lingual gingival region (74.9% greater plaque reduction, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The Spinbrush GLOBRUSH was significantly more effective in reducing plaque than the manual toothbrush when evaluated using this single-use clinical model.

8-week evaluation of anti-plaque and anti-gingivitis benefits of a unique multi-directional power toothbrush versus a sonic control toothbrush.

PURPOSE: To assess the ability of a novel multi-directional power toothbrush to control plaque and gingivitis when compared to a marketed sonic power toothbrush control. METHODS: This was a randomized and controlled, examiner-blinded, parallel group, 8-week study at a single center, in adult subjects with mild-to-moderate gingivitis. Pre-treatment gingivitis levels and plaque coverage were evaluated at baseline using the Lobene Modified Gingival Index (MGI), the Gingival Bleeding Index (GBI), and the Rustogi Modified Navy Plaque Index (RMNPI). Qualified subjects were randomly assigned to either a novel multi-directional power toothbrush with a wireless display (Oral-B Professional Deep Sweep + SmartGuide TRICLEAN 5000, also marketed as Oral-B TriZone) or the marketed control sonic toothbrush (Philips Sonicare FlexCare). After a supervised brushing at the clinical site at baseline, subjects brushed unsupervised at home twice daily according to manufacturer instructions with the assigned test brush and standard sodium fluoride dentifrice. After 8 weeks, subjects were recalled to assess toothbrush efficacy via the MGI and GBI gingivitis and RMNPI plaque evaluations. RESULTS: A total of 128 evaluable subjects completed the study. After 8 weeks of brushing, both test toothbrushes provided statistically significant reductions compared to baseline in mean whole mouth MGI and GBI, and in RMNPI whole mouth and interproximal (approximal) sites (P < 0.001). The novel multi-directional power brush consistently produced significantly superior anti-gingivitis and anti-plaque reductions relative to pre-treatment versus the sonic control brush: the Week 8 adjusted mean relative reductions were 30% and 29% greater for whole mouth MGI and GBI, respectively (P < 0.001); and were 44% and 77% greater for the RMNPI whole mouth and interproximal regions, respectively (P < or = 0.003). Both toothbrushes were well-tolerated.

Assessment of the effects of a stannous fluoride dentifrice on gingivitis in a two-month positive-controlled clinical study.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the anti-gingivitis effectiveness of a 0.454% stannous fluoride test dentifrice relative to a marketed positive-control triclosan-containing dentifrice in adults with gingivitis. METHODS: This was a two-month, randomized and controlled, double-blind, parallel group, single-center investigation involving 150 adults with existing mild to moderate gingivitis. Pre-treatment gingivitis levels were assessed at baseline using the Lobene Modified Gingival Index (MGI) and the Gingival Bleeding Index (GBI). Qualified subjects were randomly assigned to either a 0.454% stannous fluoride test dentifrice or a marketed, positive-control 0.30% triclosan/copolymer dentifrice. Subjects then brushed for two months unsupervised in the home setting with their assigned dentifrice per manufacturer's instructions. At Month 2, subjects were re-evaluated for gingivitis via MGI and GBI examinations. RESULTS: All 150 enrolled subjects completed the trial and were evaluable. Both the stannous fluoride test and triclosan/copolymer control dentifrices provided statistically significant reductions in average MGI, GBI, and number of bleeding sites relative to pre-treatment (p < 0.0001) at Month 2. The adjusted mean improvement from baseline at Month 2 for the stannous fluoride test dentifrice group was 65% greater for number of bleeding sites, 62% greater for GBI, and 45% greater for MGI compared to the triclosan/copolymer positive-control group, with groups differing significantly (p < 0.0001) via each of the three gingivitis measures. Both dentifrices were well-tolerated. CONCLUSION: An advanced stannous fluoride test dentifrice provided superior reductions in gingival inflammation and gingival bleeding compared to a commercially available triclosan/copolymer positive-control dentifrice after two months of tooth brushing.

Fast onset sensitivity relief of a 0.454% stannous fluoride dentifrice.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy ofa stannous fluoride dentifrice as compared to a negative control dentifrice in the reduction of dentinal hypersensitivity after immediate use, and after three days and two weeks of use. METHODS: This was a controlled, randomized, examiner-blind, two-treatment, parallel group study conducted among healthy adult male and female subjects with moderate dentinal hypersensitivity. Subjects with at least two sensitive teeth demonstrating reproducible sensitivity to both thermal stimuli (SchiffAir Sensitivity Scale score of > 1) and tactile stimuli (Yeaple probe 10 grams) were randomized to treatment with either a 0.454% stannous fluoride (SnF,) dentifrice (experimental group) or a 0.76% sodium monofluorophosphate dentifrice (negative control group). At baseline, subjects received an oral soft tissue examination, were assessed for tooth sensitivity, and were instructed, according to manufacturer's product instructions, to brush with their assigned dentifrice thoroughly twice a day (morning and evening). Subjects performed their first product use on site under supervision. Immediately following the first treatment, both examiner and subject assessed sensitivity to thermal stimuli for each enrolled tooth using the Schiff Air Sensitivity Scale and air visual analog scale (VAS), respectively. Thermal sensitivity was also assessed (by both examiner and subject) at the Day 3 and Week 2 study visits, together with tactile sensitivity (Yeaple probe) and oral soft tissue exams of the mouth. RESULTS: One-hundred and eleven subjects were enrolled and randomized to one of the two treatment groups. Immediately after the first use, the SnF, dentifrice provided statistically significant (p < 0.0001) reductions in sensitivity relative to the negative control dentifrice of 13.8% for the thermal Schiff Air Sensitivity Scale and 14.6% for the air VAS. The SnF, dentifrice also provided statistically significant (p < 0.0001) reductions in sensitivity relative to the negative control at Day 3 and at Week 2 based on the thermal Schiff Air Sensitivity Scale (31.8% and 61.3%, respectively) and the thermal air VAS (34.8% and 66.6%, respectively). For the tactile Yeaple probe, the SnF2 dentifrice demonstrated significantly (p < 0.0001) better sensitivity scores relative to the negative control at Day 3 and Week 2, with improvements of 186% and 239%, respectively. Both dentifrices were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: An experimental 0.454% SnF2 dentifrice provides significantly better immediate and ongoing sensitivity relief relative to a negative control dentifrice.

The plaque removal efficacy of a novel power brush head.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the plaque removal efficacy of an oscillating/rotating power toothbrush with novel brush head (Oral-B Precision Clean) in comparison to an American Dental Association (ADA) reference manual toothbrush. METHODS: This was a replicate-use, single-brushing, two-treatment, examiner-blind, randomized, four-period (visit) study with a crossover design. At each visit, subjects disclosed their plaque with disclosing solution for one minute, and an examiner performed a baseline (pre-brushing) plaque examination (Rustogi, et al. Modification of the Navy Plaque Index). Subjects were then instructed to brush for two minutes (according to manufacturer's instructions) with their assigned power toothbrush or as they normally do with the ADA manual brush under supervision, after which they again disclosed their plaque and were given a post-brushing plaque examination. RESULTS: Both the power brush and manual brush showed statistically significant plaque reductions from baseline for the whole mouth, along the gingival margin, and on approximal surfaces. The power brush showed statistically significant advantages (p < 0.001) over the manual brush in plaque reduction for whole mouth (28.8%), gingival margin (44.3%), and approximal surfaces (20.7%). CONCLUSION: The oscillating/rotating power toothbrush with a novel brush head showed statistically significantly superior plaque reduction (whole mouth, gingival margin, and approximal surfaces) compared to a manual toothbrush.

A clinical evaluation of the plaque removal efficacy of five manual toothbrushes.

OBJECTIVE: To assess and compare the plaque removal efficacy of five different Oral-B manual toothbrushes: CrossAction Pro-Health (CAPH), CrossAction (CA), Exceed (EX), Advantage 123 (ADV 123), and Indicator (IND). METHODS: This was a single-use, five-treatment, examiner-blind, randomized, five-period (visit) crossover study, with 10 different treatment sequences (groups) that determined the order in which the five toothbrushes were assigned at study visits. Three toothbrushes had an advanced CrissCross bristle design (CAPH, CA, EX), while two had more standard designs with straight bristles (ADV 123 and IND). At the first visit, subjects disclosed their plaque with disclosing solution, and an examiner performed a baseline plaque examination using the Rustogi, et al. Modification of the Navy Plaque Index (RMNPI). Subjects brushed for one minute with their assigned toothbrush under supervision, after which they again disclosed their plaque and were given a second plaque examination. The same procedure was followed for each of the visits in turn. RESULTS: All five manual toothbrushes showed a statistically significant (p < 0.0001) reduction in plaque from baseline for the whole mouth (84% to 93%), gingival margin (74% to 88%), and approximal surfaces (95% to 99%). For pair-wise treatment comparisons for all three plaque measures, CAPH, CA, and EX demonstrated statistically significantly better plaque removal than ADV 123 and IND (all p < 0.018). No other treatment comparisons were statistically significant. CONCLUSION: All five manual toothbrushes showed highly effective plaque reduction for whole mouth, gingival margin, and approximal surfaces. Comparisons between brushes showed consistent advantages for CAPH, CA, and EX compared to ADV 123 and IND for all three plaque measures, indicating that advances in toothbrush design can further enhance plaque removal.

A randomized 12-week study to compare the gingivitis and plaque reduction benefits of a rotation-oscillation power toothbrush and a sonic power toothbrush.

OBJECTIVE: Sonic and rotation-oscillation power toothbrushes are popular and effective, but have been shown to differ in relative benefits. The objective of this 12-week investigation was to compare the efficacy of a rotation-oscillation powered toothbrush and a newly introduced sonic toothbrush in the reduction of gingivitis and dental plaque. METHODS: This was a randomized, controlled, examiner-blind, two-treatment, parallel-group study to assess gingivitis reduction and plaque reductions after twice-daily brushing with either the rotation-oscillation brush or the sonic toothbrush over 12 weeks. The Modified Gingival Index (MGI) and Gingival Bleeding Index (GBI) were used to determine gingivitis benefits at Week 6 and Week 12, and plaque was scored at these visits before and after supervised brushing using the Rustogi Modified Navy Plaque Index (RMNPI). RESULTS: In 171 evaluable subjects, gingivitis reduction benefits were significantly greater for the rotation-oscillation brush group than for those using the sonic toothbrush, with relative mean benefits favoring the rotation-oscillation brush of 29.4% for GBI and 8.2% for MGI at 12 weeks (p < or = 0.01). The rotation-oscillation brush produced significantly lower RMNPI plaque by 33.3% compared to the sonic toothbrush (p < 0.001) at Week 12. CONCLUSION: The rotation-oscillation power toothbrush was significantly more efficacious than the sonic toothbrush in removing plaque, in reducing gingivitis, and lowering the number of bleeding sites after 12 weeks of twice-daily brushing.

Clinical evaluations of plaque removal efficacy: an advanced rotating-oscillating power toothbrush versus a sonic toothbrush.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and plaque removal efficacy of an advanced rotating-oscillating power toothbrush relative to a sonic toothbrush with either a standard or compact brush head. METHODOLOGY: Two studies used a randomized, examiner-blind, two-treatment, crossover design. In Study 1, subjects were instructed to use their first randomly assigned toothbrush for five to seven days and then, after abstaining from all oral hygiene for 24 hours, were assessed with the Rustogi, et al. Modified Navy Plaque Index. They then brushed for two minutes and post-brushing plaque scores were recorded. Subjects were assigned to the alternate toothbrush and the procedures were repeated. In Study 2, subjects alternated using both brushes for approximately 10 days, then had four study visits three to four days apart (some variability based on patient scheduling). In Study 1, Oral-B Triumph with a FlossAction brush head and Sonicare Elite 7300 with a full-size, standard head were compared in a two-treatment, two-period crossover study. Study 2 compared Oral-B Triumph with a FlossAction brush head and Sonicare Elite 7300 with a compact head in a two-treatment, four-period crossover study. RESULTS: Fifty subjects completed Study 1 and 48 completed Study 2. All brushes were found to be safe and significantly reduced plaque after a single brushing. In Study 1, Oral-B Triumph was statistically significantly (p < 0.001) more effective in plaque removal than Sonicare Elite 7300 with the full-size brush head: whole mouth = 24% better, marginal = 31% better, approximal = 21% better. In Study 2, Oral-B Triumph was statistically significantly (p < 0.001) more effective than Sonicare Elite 7300 with the compact brush head: whole mouth = 12.2% better, marginal = 14.6% better, approximal = 12% better. CONCLUSION: Oral-B Triumph with its rotation-oscillation action was significantly more effective in single-use plaque removal than Sonicare Elite 7300 with its side-to-side sonic action when fitted with either a standard or a compact brush head.

Single-use plaque removal efficacy of three power toothbrushes.

OBJECTIVES.: To compare the safety and plaque removal efficacy of two oscillating/rotating/pulsating toothbrushes (Oral-B ProfessionalCaretrade mark 7000 [PC 7000] and Oral-B 3D Excel [3DE]) and a high-frequency toothbrush (Sonicare(R) Advance, Philips Oral Healthcare; SA) in a single-use, examiner-blind, three period crossover study. METHODS.: After refraining from all oral hygiene procedures for 23-25 hours, subjects received an oral tissue examination and those with pre-brushing whole mouth mean plaque scores 0.6 based on the Rustogi et al. Modified Navy Plaque Index were randomly assigned to treatment sequence. After brushing with the assigned toothbrush and a commercially available dentifrice for 2 minutes, oral tissues were then re-examined and post-brushing plaque scores recorded. Following a brief washout period between two additional visits, the above procedures were repeated with the two alternate toothbrushes. One examiner, blinded to the treatment sequence, performed all clinical measurements. RESULTS.: A total of 79 subjects (28 males and 51 females) were enrolled and completed the study. Each toothbrush was found to be safe and significantly reduced plaque levels after a single brushing. The PC 7000 and 3DE were equally more effective in plaque removal than the SA, at all tooth areas, reducing plaque by 59.0%, 59.7% and 51.8%, respectively on whole mouth surfaces, and by 67.5%, 67.8% and 59.4%, respectively on approximal surfaces. CONCLUSIONS.: The action of the oscillating/rotating/pulsating toothbrushes (Oral-B ProfessionalCare 7000 and Oral-B 3D Excel) was more effective in plaque removal than the high-frequency toothbrush (Sonicare Advance).

Plaque removal efficacy of two electric toothbrushes with different brush head designs.

OBJECTIVES.: To compare the safety and plaque removal efficacy of two electric toothbrushes, one a rechargeable oscillating/pulsating toothbrush with a small round brush head (Oral-B ProfessionalCaretrade mark 7000; PC 7000), the other a battery-operated toothbrush with a dual moving brush head (Crest(R) SpinBrushtrade mark Pro; SBP). METHODS.: The study had a randomised, examiner-blind, two-arm crossover design. All subjects received an oral prophylaxis and used both toothbrushes on alternating days for a two-week practice period. After abstaining from all oral hygiene procedures for 23-25 hours, subjects received an oral tissue examination and those with pre-brushing whole mouth mean plaque scores >/=0.60 measured by the Rustogi et al. Modified Navy Plaque Index were randomly assigned to treatment sequence. Subjects brushed with their assigned toothbrush for 2 minutes using a commercially available dentifrice. Oral tissues were then re-examined and post-brushing plaque scores recorded. After a brief washout period, the above procedures were repeated with the alternate toothbrush. One examiner, blinded to the treatment sequence, performed all clinical measurements. RESULTS.: A total of 70 subjects (24 males and 46 females) were enrolled and completed the study. Each toothbrush was found to be safe and significantly reduced plaque levels after a single brushing. The PC 7000 was significantly more effective in plaque removal than the SBP at all tooth areas, reducing whole mouth plaque by 61% versus 58% and plaque from approximal surfaces by 69% versus 65%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS.: The action of the oscillating/pulsating toothbrush with a small round brush head, Oral-B ProfessionalCare 7000, is more effective in plaque removal than the battery-operated Crest SpinBrush Pro toothbrush with a larger dual moving brush head.

Efficacy of a novel brush head in the comparison of two power toothbrushes on removal of plaque and naturally occurring extrinsic stain.

OBJECTIVES.: To compare the safety and efficacy of an oscillating/pulsating power toothbrush (Oral-B ProfessionalCaretrade mark 7000; PC 7000) fitted with either the standard FlexiSoft (PC 7000/EB17) brush head or the novel Pro Polisher (PC 7000/EB-Prophy) and a high-frequency toothbrush (Philips Sonicare(R) Elite(R); SE), in their relative ability to remove plaque and naturally occurring extrinsic dental stain over a six-week period. METHODS.: This randomised, examiner-blind, parallel group study involved 90 healthy subjects from a general population. All subjects received a baseline plaque (Turesky et al. modified Quigley-Hein Plaque Index), stain (Lobene Stain Index) and tooth shade (VITAPAN(R) Shade Guide) [Vita] assessment and an oral tissue examination. After training in the use of their randomly assigned device, subjects were instructed to brush twice daily for 2 min and returned after 3, 4 and 6 weeks of product use for a repeat of each clinical assessment. RESULTS.: Reductions from baseline in mean plaque and extrinsic dental stain scores were significant at Weeks 3, 4 and 6 in all three treatment groups. By Week 6, mean reductions from baseline in whole mouth plaque scores were 32%, 27% and 14% in the PC 7000/EB-Prophy, PC 7000/EB17 and SE groups, respectively. For the body of the tooth, mean reductions from baseline at Week 6 in total stain were 89%, 89% and 80%, respectively. Between treatment group comparisons consistently revealed that the PC 7000 toothbrush plus the EB-Prophy or EB17 brush head removed significantly more plaque and extrinsic stain (total stain, stain area and stain intensity) than the SE toothbrush at 3, 4 and 6 weeks. The EB-Prophy group had a greater proportion of subjects showing a 2-3+ change in Vita shade scores at each time point compared to the other two brushes; at Week 6 the proportions were 67% in the PC 7000/EB-Prophy group, 30% in the PC 7000/EB17 group, and 7% in the SE group. The PC 7000/EB17, PC 7000/EB-Prophy and the SE were found to be safe as used in the study. CONCLUSIONS.: The oscillating/rotating/pulsating PC 7000 (fitted with either the standard EB17 or novel EB-Prophy brush head) is more effective at removal of plaque and naturally occurring extrinsic tooth stain, and the PC 7000 plus EB-Prophy in the improvement of tooth shade, than the high-frequency SE toothbrush.

Single-use plaque removal efficacy of three power toothbrushes.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the safety and plaque removal efficacy of two oscillating/rotating/pulsating toothbrushes (Oral-B ProfessionalCare 7000 [PC 7000] and Oral-B 3D Excel [3DE]) and a high-frequency toothbrush (Sonicare Advance, Philips Oral Healthcare; SA) in a single-use, examiner-blind, three period crossover study. METHODS: After refraining from all oral hygiene procedures for 23-25 hours, subjects received an oral tissue examination and those with pre-brushing whole mouth mean plaque scores > or = 0.6 based on the Rustogi et al. Modified Navy Plaque Index were randomly assigned to treatment sequence. After brushing with the assigned toothbrush and a commercially available dentifrice for 2 minutes, oral tissues were then re-examined and post-brushing plaque scores recorded. Following a brief washout period between two additional visits, the above procedures were repeated with the two alternate toothbrushes. One examiner, blinded to the treatment sequence, performed all clinical measurements. RESULTS: A total of 79 subjects (28 males and 51 females) were enrolled and completed the study. Each toothbrush was found to be safe and significantly reduced plaque levels after a single brushing. The PC 7000 and 3DE were equally more effective in plaque removal than the SA, at all tooth areas, reducing plaque by 59.0%, 59.7% and 51.8%, respectively on whole mouth surfaces, and by 67.5%, 67.8% and 59.4%, respectively on approximal surfaces. CONCLUSIONS: The action of the oscillating/rotating/pulsating toothbrushes (Oral-B ProfessionalCare 7000 and Oral-B 3D Excel) was more effective in plaque removal than the high-frequency toothbrush (Sonicare Advance).

Plaque removal efficacy of two electric toothbrushes with different brush head designs.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the safety and plaque removal efficacy of two electric toothbrushes, one a rechargeable oscillating/pulsating toothbrush with a small round brush head (Oral-B ProfessionalCare 7000; PC 7000), the other a battery-operated toothbrush with a dual moving brush head (Crest SpinBrush Pro; SBP). METHODS: The study had a randomised, examiner-blind, two-arm crossover design. All subjects received an oral prophylaxis and used both toothbrushes on alternating days for a two-week practice period. After abstaining from all oral hygiene procedures for 23-25 hours, subjects received an oral tissue examination and those with pre-brushing whole mouth mean plaque scores > or = 0.60 measured by the Rustogi et al. Modified Navy Plaque Index were randomly assigned to treatment sequence. Subjects brushed with their assigned toothbrush for 2 minutes using a commercially available dentifrice. Oral tissues were then re-examined and post-brushing plaque scores recorded. After a brief washout period, the above procedures were repeated with the alternate toothbrush. One examiner, blinded to the treatment sequence, performed all clinical measurements. RESULTS: A total of 70 subjects (24 males and 46 females) were enrolled and completed the study. Each toothbrush was found to be safe and significantly reduced plaque levels after a single brushing. The PC 7000 was significantly more effective in plaque removal than the SBP at all tooth areas, reducing whole mouth plaque by 61% versus 58% and plaque from approximal surfaces by 69% versus 65%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The action of the oscillating/pulsating toothbrush with a small round brush head, Oral-B ProfessionalCare 7000, is more effective in plaque removal than the battery-operated Crest SpinBrush Pro toothbrush with a larger dual moving brush head.

Efficacy of a novel brush head in the comparison of two power toothbrushes on removal of plaque and naturally occurring extrinsic stain.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the safety and efficacy of an oscillating/pulsating power toothbrush (Oral-B ProfessionalCareTM 7000; PC 7000) fitted with either the standard FlexiSoft (PC 7000/EB17) brush head or the novel Pro Polisher (PC 7000/ EB-Prophy) and a high-frequency toothbrush (Philips Sonicare Elite; SE), in their relative ability to remove plaque and naturally occurring extrinsic dental stain over a six-week period. METHODS: This randomised, examiner-blind, parallel group study involved 90 healthy subjects from a general population. All subjects received a baseline plaque (Turesky et al. modified Quigley-Hein Plaque Index), stain (Lobene Stain Index) and tooth shade (VITAPAN Shade Guide) [Vita] assessment and an oral tissue examination. After training in the use of their randomly assigned device, subjects were instructed to brush twice daily for 2 min and returned after 3, 4 and 6 weeks of product use for a repeat of each clinical assessment. RESULTS: Reductions from baseline in mean plaque and extrinsic dental stain scores were significant at Weeks 3, 4 and 6 in all three treatment groups. By Week 6, mean reductions from baseline in whole mouth plaque scores were 32%, 27% and 14% in the PC 7000/EB-Prophy, PC 7000/EB17 and SE groups, respectivety. For the body of the tooth, mean reductions from baseline at Week 6 in total stain were 89%, 89% and 80%, respectively. Between treatment group comparisons consistently revealed that the PC 7000 toothbrush plus the EB-Prophy or EB17 brush head removed significantly more plaque and extrinsic stain (total stain, stain area and stain intensity) than the SE toothbrush at 3, 4 and 6 weeks. The EB-Prophy group had a greater proportion of subjects showing a 2-3+ change in Vita shade scores at each time point compared to the other two brushes; at Week 6 the proportions were 67% in the PC 7000/EB-Prophy group, 30% in the PC 7000/EB17 group, and 7% in the SE group. The PC 7000/EB17, PC 7000/EB-Prophy and the SE were found to be safe as used in the study. CONCLUSIONS: The oscillating/rotating/pulsating PC 7000 (fitted with either the standard EB17 or novel EB-Prophy brush head) is more effective at removal of plaque and naturally occurring extrinsic tooth stain, and the PC 7000 plus EB-Prophy in the improvement of tooth shade, than the high-frequency SE toothbrush.

A comparison of the plaque removal efficacy of two power toothbrushes: Oral-b Professional Care Series versus Sonicare Elite.

AIM: To compare the safety and plaque removal efficacy of an oscillating/ pulsating toothbrush (Professional Care Series, Oral-B Laboratories; PCS) and a high frequency toothbrush (Sonicare Elite, Philips Oral Healthcare; SE). METHODS: The study had a randomised, examiner-blind, crossover design. Sixty-one subjects aged 19-64 years were enrolled. After 23-25 hours of no oral hygiene, subjects received an oral tissue examination and those with pre-brushing whole mouth mean plaque scores > or = 0.60 measured by the Rustogi modified Navy Plaque Index were randomly assigned to treatment sequence. Subjects brushed with their assigned toothbrush for 2 minutes using a commercially available dentifrice. Oral tissues were then re-examined and post-brushing plaque scores recorded. After a brief washout period, the above procedures were repeated with the alternate toothbrush. One examiner blinded to the treatment sequence performed all clinical measurements. RESULTS: All 61 subjects completed the study. Both toothbrushes significantly reduced plaque levels after a single brushing (t-test, p < 0.0001). However, the PCS was significantly more effective than the SE in whole mouth plaque removal and in reducing plaque from marginal, buccal, lingual and approximal surfaces (ANOVA, p < 0.0001). Whole mouth plaque was reduced by 88% versus 61% and approximal plaque by 97% versus 73% for the PCS and SE toothbrushes, respectively. There was no evidence of hard or soft tissue trauma after a single-use of either toothbrush. CONCLUSION: Based on the findings of this single-use clinical evaluation, the action of the oscillating/ pulsating power toothbrush is more effective at plaque removal than a high frequency power toothbrush.

Adjunctive benefit of an essential oil-containing mouthrinse in reducing plaque and gingivitis in patients who brush and floss regularly: a six-month study.

BACKGROUND: Mechanical methods of oral hygiene can be complemented by the use of chemotherapeutic mouthrinses. The authors sought to quantify the additional benefit provided by an essential oil-, or EO-, containing mouthrinse in reducing plaque and gingivitis in patients who brush and floss regularly. METHODS: The authors randomly assigned patients with gingivitis to one of three treatment groups: brushing and rinsing with a control mouthrinse, or BC; brushing, flossing and rinsing with a control mouthrinse, or BFC; or brushing, flossing and rinsing with an EO-containing mouthrinse, or BFEO. Patients received a dental prophylaxis at baseline, and the authors followed them for six months. RESULTS: Of 246 enrolled subjects enrolled in the study, 237 subjects were evaluable at the study's conclusion. After six months, the subjects using the BFEO regimen had statistically and clinically significant lower mean Modified Gingival Index, or MGI, scores and Plaque Index, or PI, scores than did subjects in the BC group (29.9 percent and 56.3 percent, respectively; P < .001). Subjects in the BFC group had statistically significantly lower mean MGI and PI scores than did subjects in the BC group (11.2 percent and 9.3 percent, respectively; P < .001). Subjects in the BFEO group exhibited statistically and clinically significantly lower mean scores for MGI and PI than did subjects in the BFC group (21 percent and 51.9 percent, respectively; P < .001). CONCLUSIONS: This study confirms that for patients with gingivitis who brush and floss routinely, the adjunctive use of an EO-containing mouthrinse provides a clinically significant and meaningful additional benefit in reducing plaque and gingivitis. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: An EO-containing mouthrinse is an effective adjunct to regular brushing and flossing. Therefore, the BFEO regimen can be beneficial for patients with gingival inflammation.

Antiplaque and antigingivitis effectiveness of a hexetidine mouthwash.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the antiplaque/antigingivitis efficacy of a hexetidine-containing mouthwash. METHODS: This examiner-blind, parallel group, controlled clinical study examined the effectiveness of a hexetidine (0.1%) mouthwash both in inhibiting the development of supragingival plaque and in reducing gingivitis. One hundred and thirty-four adult subjects completed the 2-week experimental gingivitis model study. Following baseline examinations, which included plaque index, modified gingival index and gingival bleeding index, subjects received a full dental prophylaxis. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of three mouthwashes (hexetidine 0.1%, chlorhexidine 0.12% (positive control) or a 5% hydroalcohol negative control) and commenced three times daily supervised rinsing as their sole method of oral hygiene. All indices were rescored after 2 weeks. RESULTS: Compared to the negative control group, the hexetidine group demonstrated a statistically significant inhibition and reduction of supragingival plaque and gingival inflammation with reductions of 6.3%, 33.5% and 56% for gingivitis, plaque and gingival bleeding, respectively. The results of the chlorhexidine group were used to validate the study. CONCLUSION: The study confirms the efficacy of a hexetidine rinse in reducing supragingival plaque and gingival inflammation.

Comparative efficacy of an antiseptic mouthrinse and an antiplaque/antigingivitis dentifrice. A six-month clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of an essential oil-containing antiseptic mouthrinse (Listerine Antiseptic, Pfizer) and an antiplaque/antigingivitis dentifrice (Colgate Total, Colgate-Palmolive) has been demonstrated in numerous double-blind clinical studies. This study was conducted to determine their comparative efficacy. METHODS: Three hundred sixteen subjects with mild-to-moderate gingival inflammation and plaque received a dental prophylaxis and began their randomly assigned brushing and rinsing regimen in an unsupervised setting. Subjects brushed for one minute and rinsed with 20 milliliters for 30 seconds twice daily for six months. The three groups were L (control toothpaste/Listerine rinse), T (Colgate Total toothpaste/control rinse) and P (control toothpaste/control rinse). RESULTS: Subjects in the L and T groups demonstrated statistically significantly lower (P < .001) Modified Gingival Index, or MGI; Bleeding Index, or BI; and Plaque Index, or PI, at both three and six months than subjects in the P group. The magnitude of reduction for the L group was 22.9 percent, 70 percent and 56.1 percent, respectively, and for the T group, 20.8 percent, 58 percent and 22.1 percent, respectively. Subjects in the L group were not different from subjects in the T group in regard to visual signs of gingivitis (MGI), but were more effective (P < .001) than subjects in the T group in experiencing reduced BI and PI. No product-related adverse events were reported. CONCLUSION: Although the Listerine Antiseptic and Colgate Total antiplaque/antigingivitis products produced similar, clinically significant reductions in gingivitis (as measured by MGI and BI), Listerine, when used in conjunction with a fluoride dentifrice and usual oral hygiene, provided a greater benefit in reducing plaque. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: When considering an antiplaque/antigingivitis product to recommend to patients, clinicians should consider Listerine Antiseptic, in conjunction with usual oral hygiene, if more rigorous plaque control is desired.