Literature DB >> 25343391

Moderate quality evidence finds statistical benefit in oral health for powered over manual toothbrushes.

Richard Niederman1.   

Abstract

DATA SOURCES: The Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Medline, Embase, CINAHL, National Institutes of Health Trials Register and the WHO Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. Reference lists of identified articles were also scanned for relevant papers. Identified manufacturers were contacted for additional information. STUDY SELECTION: Only randomised controlled trials comparing manual and powered toothbrushes were considered. Crossover trials were eligible for inclusion if the wash-out period length was more than two weeks. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Study assessment and data extraction were carried out independently by at least two reviewers. The primary outcome measures were quantified levels of plaque or gingivitis. Risk of bias assessment was undertaken. Standard Cochrane methodological approaches were taken. Random-effects models were used provided there were four or more studies included in the meta-analysis, otherwise fixed-effect models were used. Data were classed as short term (one to three months) and long term (greater than three months).
RESULTS: Fifty-six trials were included with 51 (4624 patients) providing data for meta-analysis. The majority (46) were at unclear risk of bias, five at high risk of bias and five at low risk. There was moderate quality evidence that powered toothbrushes provide a statistically significant benefit compared with manual toothbrushes with regard to the reduction of plaque in both the short and long-term. This corresponds to an 11% reduction in plaque for the Quigley Hein index (Turesky) in the short term and a 21% reduction in the long term. There was a high degree of heterogeneity that was not explained by the different powered toothbrush type subgroups.There was also moderate quality evidence that powered toothbrushes again provide a statistically significant reduction in gingivitis when compared with manual toothbrushes both in the short and long term. This corresponds to a 6% and 11% reduction in gingivitis for the Löe and Silness indices respectively. Again there was a high degree of heterogeneity that was not explained by the different powered toothbrush type subgroups. The greatest body of evidence was for rotation oscillation brushes which demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in plaque and gingivitis at both time points.
CONCLUSIONS: Powered toothbrushes reduce plaque and gingivitis more than manual toothbrushing in the short and long term. The clinical importance of these findings remains unclear. Observation of methodological guidelines and greater standardisation of design would benefit both future trials and meta-analyses. Cost, reliability and side effects were inconsistently reported. Any reported side effects were localised and only temporary.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25343391     DOI: 10.1038/sj.ebd.6401041

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Evid Based Dent        ISSN: 1462-0049


  7 in total

1.  Manual versus powered toothbrushes: the Cochrane review.

Authors:  Richard Niederman
Journal:  J Am Dent Assoc       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 3.634

Review 2.  Quality of trials in a systematic review of powered toothbrushes: suggestions for future clinical trials.

Authors:  Peter G Robinson; A Damien Walmsley; Michael Heanue; Scott Deacon; Christopher Deery; Ann Marie Glenny; Helen Worthington; William Shaw
Journal:  J Periodontol       Date:  2006-12       Impact factor: 6.993

3.  How quickly do systematic reviews go out of date? A survival analysis.

Authors:  Kaveh G Shojania; Margaret Sampson; Mohammed T Ansari; Jun Ji; Steve Doucette; David Moher
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2007-07-16       Impact factor: 25.391

4.  Toothbrushing frequency as it relates to plaque development and gingival health.

Authors:  N P Lang; B R Cumming; H Löe
Journal:  J Periodontol       Date:  1973-07       Impact factor: 6.993

5.  Two methods provide similar signals for the need to update systematic reviews.

Authors:  Mei Chung; Sydne J Newberry; Mohammed T Ansari; Winifred W Yu; Helen Wu; Jounghee Lee; Marika Suttorp; James M Gaylor; Aneesa Motala; David Moher; Ethan M Balk; Paul G Shekelle
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2012-03-29       Impact factor: 6.437

Review 6.  The effectiveness of manual versus powered toothbrushes for dental health: a systematic review.

Authors:  C Deery; M Heanue; S Deacon; P G Robinson; A D Walmsley; H Worthington; W Shaw; A-M Glenny
Journal:  J Dent       Date:  2004-03       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 7.  The modified Ottawa method to establish the update need of a systematic review: glass-ionomer versus resin sealants for caries prevention.

Authors:  Steffen Mickenautsch; Veerasamy Yengopal
Journal:  J Appl Oral Sci       Date:  2013 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.698

  7 in total
  1 in total

Review 1.  Prevalence of periodontal disease, its association with systemic diseases and prevention.

Authors:  Muhammad Ashraf Nazir
Journal:  Int J Health Sci (Qassim)       Date:  2017 Apr-Jun
  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.