A 30-day clinical comparison of a novel interdental cleaning device and dental floss in the reduction of plaque and gingivitis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and efficacy of a novel battery-operated interdental cleaning device (Oral-B Hummingbird) [ID], fitted with either a flossette or pick attachment, versus hand-held dental floss in the reduction of plaque and gingivitis when combined with manual tooth brushing over a 30-day period. METHODOLOGY: This randomized, examiner blind, parallel group study assessed three treatment groups: ID/flossette (ID/F), ID/pick (ID/P), and unwaxed manual dental floss. All groups used the same soft manual toothbrush and toothpaste. The 84 subjects were stratified to treatment groups based on initial whole mouth mean plaque scores, gingivitis scores, and gender. Subjects were instructed to brush twice daily and use their assigned interdental method once daily in the evening before brushing. Gingivitis, gingival bleeding, and plaque were evaluated at baseline and Day 30. RESULTS: A total of 78 subjects completed all aspects of the study and were included in the analyses. There was no significant difference between treatment groups in baseline plaque, gingivitis, and bleeding scores. After 30 days, statistically significant reductions from baseline gingivitis and bleeding scores were found for all groups (p < 0.0001), but there were no significant statistical differences among groups. Whole mouth and approximal plaque scores were significantly reduced from baseline in the manual floss and ID/F groups after 30 days of product use, with no significant difference between groups. Plaque reduction for both the manual floss and ID/F groups was significantly greater than the ID/P group. All interdental cleaning methods were safe as used in the study, with no evidence of oral hard or soft tissue trauma. CONCLUSION: The Oral-B Hummingbird was safe and effective in reducing approximal plaque and gingival inflammation, and provides a useful alternative device for interdental cleaning.

Plaque removal efficacy of a novel tooth wipe.

OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to evaluate the safety and plaque removal efficacy of a tooth wipe (Oral-B Brush-Ups) using a manual toothbrush as a control. METHODOLOGY: Twenty-five healthy subjects from a general population were enrolled in this randomized, single-use, crossover study. After 23-25 hours of no oral hygiene, oral hard and soft tissues were examined, and disclosed plaque was scored using the Turesky, et al. modification of the Quigley Hein Plaque Index. Subjects used their randomly assigned product for a timed period of one minute without instruction, after which hard and soft tissues and plaque scores were reassessed. Subjects returned to the clinic after a one-week washout period, and the clinical procedures were repeated before and after use of the alternate product. All clinical measurements were made by one examiner who was masked to treatment sequence. RESULTS: Both the tooth wipe and toothbrush were found to be safe, and significantly reduced plaque levels from whole mouth, facial, and lingual surfaces (p < 0.0001). The toothbrush removed significantly greater plaque than the tooth wipe (p < 0.0001) on whole mouth surfaces (49% vs. 29%), facial surfaces (71% vs. 44%), and lingual surfaces (25% vs. 13%). CONCLUSION: The tooth wipe provides an effective method of plaque removal when tooth brushing is not practical.

Plaque removal efficacy and safety of the next generation of manual toothbrush with angled bristle technology: results from three comparative clinical studies.

PURPOSE: To investigate the safety and efficacy of a novel angled-bristled toothbrush in comparison with three established brushes. METHODS: The Oral-B CrossAction Vitalizer toothbrush was compared with two manual toothbrushes, the Oral-B CrossAction and Oral-B Advantage, and the battery-operated Crest SpinBrush Pro brush in three independent single-use, examiner-blind, crossover studies. In each study, over 50 healthy subjects from a normal population brushed with their randomly assigned toothbrush for 1 minute without instruction. Subjects returned after a 1-week washout period and brushed with the alternate toothbrush. At each visit, oral hard and soft tissues and plaque were examined before and after brushing. Plaque was evaluated using the Rustogi Modified Navy Plaque Index. RESULTS: Each tested toothbrush significantly (P=0.0001) reduced plaque levels after a single brushing. However, in all three studies, the CrossAction Vitalizer was significantly (P=0.0001) more effective than the comparator brushes in plaque removal from the whole mouth, the gingival margin and approximal surfaces. All toothbrushes were found to be safe with no evidence of oral hard or soft tissue trauma.