C Ganss1, R Duran2, T Winterfeld2, N Schlueter2,3. 1. Department of Conservative and Preventive Dentistry, Dental Clinic of the Justus-Liebig-University, Giessen, Germany. carolina.ganss@dentist.med.uni-giessen.de. 2. Department of Conservative and Preventive Dentistry, Dental Clinic of the Justus-Liebig-University, Giessen, Germany. 3. Division for Cariology, Department of Operative Dentistry and Periodontology, Medical Center - University of Freiburg, Faculty of Medicine, University of Freiburg, Freiburg, Germany.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Systematic reviews have shown that powered toothbrushes (PTs) are more effective than manual toothbrushes (MTs), but with only minor effect sizes. Whether PTs are used adequately, however, has not been investigated so far. The aim of the present study was therefore to analyse motion habits with PT in comparison to MT toothbrushes by video observation. MATERIALS AND METHODS:One hundred subjects were enrolled in this observational trial and brushed their teeth in randomised order with a MT and PT while being video-filmed, resulting in 95 analysable sets of recordings. Parameters of interest were brushing duration (s; median (min;max)), type of brushing strokes, area of brushing, changes between areas (n; median (min;max)) and brushing sequence. RESULTS: Brushing duration was 145 s (60;354) and 135 s (48;271) for PT and MT, respectively (p ≤ 0.001). Subjects brushed vestibular surfaces completely, but reached oral surfaces to a much lesser extent, regardless of the toothbrush type. With both toothbrushes, subjects moved frequently between areas (MT 35 (14;79); PT 33 (14;85); n.s.) and brushed predominantly with circling and horizontal strokes; with the PT, 50.5% of the subjects spent only <10% of the brushing duration with passive brushing (positioning the brush head on the teeth with ≤2 movements/s). CONCLUSIONS: Intra-individual motion patterns were similar with both MT and PT, and most subjects persisted in their habitual motion patterns regardless of the toothbrush type. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The use of PT and MT may need intensive training and supervision from oral hygiene educators in order to help subjects taking full advantage from these devices.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: Systematic reviews have shown that powered toothbrushes (PTs) are more effective than manual toothbrushes (MTs), but with only minor effect sizes. Whether PTs are used adequately, however, has not been investigated so far. The aim of the present study was therefore to analyse motion habits with PT in comparison to MT toothbrushes by video observation. MATERIALS AND METHODS: One hundred subjects were enrolled in this observational trial and brushed their teeth in randomised order with a MT and PT while being video-filmed, resulting in 95 analysable sets of recordings. Parameters of interest were brushing duration (s; median (min;max)), type of brushing strokes, area of brushing, changes between areas (n; median (min;max)) and brushing sequence. RESULTS: Brushing duration was 145 s (60;354) and 135 s (48;271) for PT and MT, respectively (p ≤ 0.001). Subjects brushed vestibular surfaces completely, but reached oral surfaces to a much lesser extent, regardless of the toothbrush type. With both toothbrushes, subjects moved frequently between areas (MT 35 (14;79); PT 33 (14;85); n.s.) and brushed predominantly with circling and horizontal strokes; with the PT, 50.5% of the subjects spent only <10% of the brushing duration with passive brushing (positioning the brush head on the teeth with ≤2 movements/s). CONCLUSIONS: Intra-individual motion patterns were similar with both MT and PT, and most subjects persisted in their habitual motion patterns regardless of the toothbrush type. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The use of PT and MT may need intensive training and supervision from oral hygiene educators in order to help subjects taking full advantage from these devices.
Entities:
Keywords:
Manual toothbrush; Oral hygiene; Powered toothbrush; Video observation
Authors: P Sunethra Rajapakse; Giles I McCracken; Erika Gwynnett; Nick D Steen; Arndt Guentsch; Peter A Heasman Journal: J Clin Periodontol Date: 2007-10-22 Impact factor: 8.728
Authors: Nam Rosema; D E Slot; W H van Palenstein Helderman; L Wiggelinkhuizen; G A Van der Weijden Journal: Int J Dent Hyg Date: 2014-12-25 Impact factor: 2.477
Authors: T Winterfeld; N Schlueter; D Harnacke; J Illig; J Margraf-Stiksrud; R Deinzer; C Ganss Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2014-09-04 Impact factor: 3.573
Authors: Mahmoud Essalat; Douglas Morrison; Sumukh Kak; E Jun Chang; Isabel Roig Penso; Rachel J Kulchar; Oscar Hernan Madrid Padilla; Vivek Shetty Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-05-19 Impact factor: 3.752
Authors: Nadine Schlueter; Sarah Fiedler; Maxi Mueller; Clemens Walter; Julia C Difloe-Geisert; Kirstin Vach; Carolina Ganss Journal: PLoS One Date: 2021-12-22 Impact factor: 3.240