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

OBJECTIVES: To compare the cleaning efficacy of a powered toothbrush with 3-dimensional brush head action (Braun Oral-B 3D Plaque Remover D15) and a high-speed "microtation" brush with an additional "microbrush-clip" (Rowenta Dentasonic MH921S). MATERIAL AND METHODS: 82 healthy subjects took part in the study. After a familiarization period of 8 days, the subjects abstained from all oral hygiene procedures for 48 h. After plaque was scored, the subjects brushed their teeth under supervision with the two brushes according to a split-mouth design. Immediately after brushing, subjects completed a questionnaire and plaque was scored again. RESULTS: The overall plaque scores were found to be significantly reduced from 3.05+/-0.60 to 1.96+/-0.63 by the D15 and from 3.02+/-0.58 to 2.24+/-0.64 by the Dentasonic (p<0.05). The proximal surface plaque scores were reduced from 3.20+/-0.63 to 2.17+/-0.69 by the D15 and from 3.17+/-0.60 to 2.44+/-0.69 by the Dentasonic. The relative plaque reduction was overall 36.6+/-12.2% for the D15 compared to 26.1+/-13.5% for the Dentasonic and at proximal surfaces, 33.1+/-12.3% and 23.2+/-13.0%, respectively. 75% of the subjects stated that they would prefer to keep the D15. CONCLUSIONS: Both brushes were able to remove a significant amount of plaque, but the D15 was significantly more effective compared to the Dentasonic. The additional "microbrush-clip" for the proximal embrasures failed to improve plaque removal from these tooth surfaces, compared to the D15 alone.

Comparison of the safety and efficacy of an oscillating/rotating battery-powered toothbrush and a standard manual toothbrush.

PURPOSE: To compare the cleaning efficacy of a battery-powered toothbrush with an oscillating/rotating action (Dr. Best Powerclean) and a standard flat-trimmed manual toothbrush (Elmex super 39) in a single-blind, cross-over clinical study. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 78 healthy subjects took part in the study. Subjects were asked to abstain from all oral hygiene procedures for 48 hours, after which hard and soft oral tissues were examined. Plaque was then scored using the Turesky modification of the Quigley-Hein Index, and subjects were instructed to brush their teeth for a total time of 1 minute with either one or the other brush, according to a predetermined randomization schedule. Immediately after brushing, plaque was scored again and hard and soft tissues were re-examined. All plaque scoring was carried out by the same investigator who was blind with respect to the brushes used. Subjects were instructed to continue with their usual oral care routine throughout the study period. They were scheduled to return after 12-14 days, having again abstained from all oral hygiene for 48 hours prior to the visit, in order to repeat the evaluation sequence but brushing with the alternative brush. Prior to analysis of the results, data from the two phases of the study were combined. RESULTS: Both toothbrushes were found to be safe as used in the study. Using the non-parametric Wilcoxon test for paired samples, whole mouth plaque scores were found to be reduced significantly from 2.04 +/- 0.60 to 1.57 +/- 0.51 by the Powerclean toothbrush (P < 0.001), and from 1.99 +/- 0.65 to 1.27 +/- 0.52 by the manual toothbrush (P < 0.001). At approximal surfaces, the plaque scores were also significantly reduced from 2.14 +/- 0.0.59 to 1.69 +/- 0.50 for the Powerclean (P < 0.001), and from 2.08 +/- 0.64 to 1.40 +/- 0.57 for the manual toothbrush (P < 0.001). A comparison of the two brushes revealed that the manual toothbrush removed significantly more plaque than the Powerclean, both for the whole mouth and approximal surfaces (P < 0.001). The Powerclean reduced whole mouth plaque by 23.2 +/- 11.5% compared to 37.8 +/- 14.0% for the manual toothbrush and approximal plaque by 20.9 +/- 10.6% and 34.9 +/- 14.0%, respectively. It is concluded that the Dr. Best Powerclean toothbrush is not as effective as a standard flat-trimmed manual toothbrush.

Clinical evaluation of the efficacy of a battery-powered toothbrush. results from two independent studies.

PURPOSE: To compare the clinical efficacy with respect to plaque removal of a battery-operated power toothbrush (Dr. Johns Spin Brush Classic) with two manual toothbrushes, a standard ADA flat trim reference brush and the Oral-B CrossAction toothbrush. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Efficacy was evaluated in two independent studies using a randomized, single-use, cross-over design. Healthy adult subjects from a general population brushed their teeth for a timed 1 min and plaque was scored before and after brushing was completed. In Study 1 (Spin Brush vs. ADA toothbrush), plaque was scored using the modified Quigley and Hein Plaque Index, while in Study 2 (Spin Brush vs. CrossAction) plaque was scored using the Modified Navy Plaque Index. In addition, a hard and soft tissue examination was carried out before and after brushing to allow evaluation of safety. RESULTS: In Study 1, both the ADA toothbrush and the Spin Brush significantly reduced levels of whole mouth and approximal plaque (P < 0.0005); however, the Spin Brush was not significantly more effective than the manual brush. Relative plaque reduction for the whole mouth was 35.6 +/- 16.0% for the Spin Brush compared to 38.9 +/- 14.9% for the manual toothbrush (P < 0.047), and, for the approximal surfaces, 32.7 +/- 14.6% and 36.3 +/- 13.7%, respectively (P = 0.024). In Study 2, both toothbrushes significantly reduced plaque levels (P < 0.0001), but, as for Study 1, the CrossAction manual toothbrush was more effective than the Spin Brush. For whole mouth, marginal and approximal sites, respectively, the Spin Brush reduced plaque by 54.3%, 43.5% and 62.0%, compared with 58.6%, 47.5% and 67.1% for the CrossAction toothbrush. The difference in favor of the CrossAction brush was statistically significant (P < 0.0005) for all areas.

Factors influencing proximal dental contact strengths.

The aim of this study was to systematically measure proximal contact strength in complete natural dentitions of 30 adults (25.3 +/- 3.0 years of age), and to analyze its relationship to tooth type, tooth location, chewing effort and time of day variation. The contact strengths were measured dynamically during removal of a calibrated 0.05-mm-thick metal strip between the proximal contacts of adjacent teeth. Proximal contact strengths were lower in the maxilla (2.51 +/- 1.36 N) compared to the mandible (4.26 +/- 1.88 N). Within the jaws, the lowest proximal contact strength was measured between canine and first premolar (2.91 +/- 1.79 N) and the highest between second premolar and first molar (3.73 +/- 1.95 N). Chewing increased the proximal contact strength within the maxilla (before: 2.51 +/- 1.36 N, after: 3.02 +/- 1.45 N) but it remained unchanged in the mandible (before: 4.26 +/- 1.88 N, after: 4.22 +/- 1.85 N). The proximal contact strength increased significantly from morning (3.39 +/- 1.86 N) to noon (3.61 +/- 1.77 N), and then decreased in the afternoon (3.43 +/- 1.60 N). It was concluded that proximal contact strength can be significantly influenced by location, tooth type, chewing and time of day variation. Based on the differences in distribution due to the effect of chewing and time of day, it is speculated that proximal contact strength is a physiological entity of multifactorial origin.