Christina Erbe1, Violetta Klees2, Fabienne Braunbeck2, Priscila Ferrari-Peron2, Renzo A Ccahuana-Vasquez3, Hans Timm3, Julie Grender4, Pamela Cunningham4, Ralf Adam3, Heinrich Wehrbein2. 1. Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany. Electronic address: erbe@uni-mainz.de. 2. Department of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany. 3. Research and Development, Procter & Gamble Company, Kronberg, Germany. 4. Research and Development, Procter & Gamble Company, Mason, Ohio.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The objective of this 2-arm parallel trial was to determine the plaque removal efficacy (main outcome) and the motivation assessment (secondary outcome) comparing a manual versus an interactive power toothbrush in orthodontic patients. METHODS:Sixty adolescents with fixed orthodontic appliances in both arches were randomized in a 1:1 ratio in this parallel, randomized, examiner-blind controlled clinical trial. Eligibility criteria included at least 16 natural teeth, 1-6 "focus care areas," plaque score of ≥1.75, no severe caries, gingivitis and periodontitis, no dental prophylaxis, no smoking, no antibiotics, and no chlorhexidine mouth rinse. Subjects were to brush unsupervised with either an interactive power toothbrush (Oral-B Professional Care 6000, D36/EB20) with Bluetooth technology or a regular manual toothbrush (Oral-B Indicator 35 soft). Focus care areas were each brushed for 10 additional seconds. Plaque removal was assessed with the use of the Turesky Modification of the Quigley-Hein Plaque Index (TMQHPI) to determine change from baseline at 2 and 6 weeks. Supervised brushing at screening and post-treatment visits recorded actual brushing times. Subject-reported motivational aspects were recorded at screening and week 6. RESULTS:Fifty-nine subjects aged 13-17 years completed the study. The interactive power toothbrush provided significantly (P <0.001) greater plaque reduction versus the manual toothbrush at 2 and 6 weeks according to the whole-mouth TMQHPI. The treatment difference in adjusted mean plaque change from baseline was 0.777 (95% CI 0.614-0.940) at week 2 and 0.834 (0.686-0.981) at week 6. Mean reductions in the number of focus care areas were also significantly greater (P <0.001) in the power brush group at weeks 2 and 6. Brushing times increased significantly at weeks 2 and 6 (P ≤0.013) versus baseline in the interactive power brush group only. Subject-reported motivation was significantly increased in the interactive power brush group at week 6 versus screening (P ≤0.005). CONCLUSIONS: An interactive power toothbrush generated increased brushing times and significantly greater plaque removal versus a manual brush.
RCT Entities:
INTRODUCTION: The objective of this 2-arm parallel trial was to determine the plaque removal efficacy (main outcome) and the motivation assessment (secondary outcome) comparing a manual versus an interactive power toothbrush in orthodontic patients. METHODS: Sixty adolescents with fixed orthodontic appliances in both arches were randomized in a 1:1 ratio in this parallel, randomized, examiner-blind controlled clinical trial. Eligibility criteria included at least 16 natural teeth, 1-6 "focus care areas," plaque score of ≥1.75, no severe caries, gingivitis and periodontitis, no dental prophylaxis, no smoking, no antibiotics, and no chlorhexidine mouth rinse. Subjects were to brush unsupervised with either an interactive power toothbrush (Oral-B Professional Care 6000, D36/EB20) with Bluetooth technology or a regular manual toothbrush (Oral-B Indicator 35 soft). Focus care areas were each brushed for 10 additional seconds. Plaque removal was assessed with the use of the Turesky Modification of the Quigley-Hein Plaque Index (TMQHPI) to determine change from baseline at 2 and 6 weeks. Supervised brushing at screening and post-treatment visits recorded actual brushing times. Subject-reported motivational aspects were recorded at screening and week 6. RESULTS: Fifty-nine subjects aged 13-17 years completed the study. The interactive power toothbrush provided significantly (P <0.001) greater plaque reduction versus the manual toothbrush at 2 and 6 weeks according to the whole-mouth TMQHPI. The treatment difference in adjusted mean plaque change from baseline was 0.777 (95% CI 0.614-0.940) at week 2 and 0.834 (0.686-0.981) at week 6. Mean reductions in the number of focus care areas were also significantly greater (P <0.001) in the power brush group at weeks 2 and 6. Brushing times increased significantly at weeks 2 and 6 (P ≤0.013) versus baseline in the interactive power brush group only. Subject-reported motivation was significantly increased in the interactive power brush group at week 6 versus screening (P ≤0.005). CONCLUSIONS: An interactive power toothbrush generated increased brushing times and significantly greater plaque removal versus a manual brush.
Authors: Cassiano Kuchenbecker Rösing; Eduardo Garduño; Sandra Kalil Bussadori; Agustín Zerón; Paulo Vinícius Soares; Marc Saadia; Cristina Cunha Villar Journal: Int J Dent Date: 2022-08-22
Authors: Shaima Bahammam; Chia-Yu Chen; Yoshiki Ishida; Akito Hayashi; Yutaka Ikeda; Hiroaki Ishii; David M Kim; Shigemi Nagai Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-12-12 Impact factor: 3.390