A 5-week randomized clinical evaluation of a novel electric toothbrush head with regular and tapered bristles versus a manual toothbrush for reduction of gingivitis and plaque.

Renzo Alberto Ccahuana‐Vasquez,Ralf Adam,Julie M Grender,Jimmy Qaqish,Pamela Cunningham,Erinn Conde,C Ram Goyal

doi:10.1111/idh.12372

Abstract

ObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of an oscillating‐rotating (O‐R) electric rechargeable toothbrush with a novel round brush head comprised of regular and tapered bristles in reducing plaque and gingivitis versus a manual toothbrush.MethodsThis was a randomized, examiner‐blind, parallel group, five‐week study. Participants with mild‐to‐moderate plaque and gingivitis received an oral examination and were evaluated for baseline plaque (Rustogi Modified Navy Index), gingivitis (Modified Gingival Index) and gingival bleeding (Gingival Bleeding Index). Qualifying participants were randomly assigned to the novel Oral‐B sensitive brush head (EB60) on an Oral‐B Vitality O‐R handle (D12) or an ADA manual toothbrush. Participants brushed twice daily with the assigned brush and a standard fluoride dentifrice for 5 weeks before returning for an oral examination and plaque and gingivitis evaluations.ResultsA total of 150 participants were randomized to treatment and completed the study (mean age = 45.7 years). Both brushes demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in number of bleeding sites versus baseline (P < 0.001). At Week 5, the number of bleeding sites was reduced from baseline by 11.15 (52.2%) for the O‐R brush and 5.04 (23.6%) for the manual brush. The treatment difference was statistically significant (P < 0.001). Significant reductions versus baseline (P < 0.001) were also seen for both brushes for MGI, GBI and Rustogi plaque measures (whole mouth, gingival margin and proximal), but the O‐R brush produced significantly greater reductions versus the manual brush (P < 0.001).ConclusionThe O‐R handle and round brush head with tapered and regular bristles produced greater plaque and gingivitis reductions than the manual brush.

Highlights

Periodontal disease is multifactorial, but typically involves an inflam‐ matory response to dental plaque.[1,2] It is prevalent, with approxi‐ mately 80% of the population experiencing gingivitis, the earliest stage of periodontal disease.[3]
Partici‐ pants first received an oral examination. This was followed by an as‐ sessment of gingivitis using the Modified Gingival Index (MGI) and Gingival Bleeding Index (GBI).[20,21]
The increased plaque removal efficacy of the O‐R brush was especially marked for proximal areas, where long, thin tapered bristles have been shown to have cleaning advantages.[8]

Summary

Introduction

Periodontal disease is multifactorial, but typically involves an inflam‐ matory response to dental plaque.[1,2] It is prevalent, with approxi‐ mately 80% of the population experiencing gingivitis, the earliest stage of periodontal disease.[3]. Periodontal disease is multifactorial, but typically involves an inflam‐ matory response to dental plaque.[1,2]. It is prevalent, with approxi‐ mately 80% of the population experiencing gingivitis, the earliest stage of periodontal disease.[3]. A multitude of manual and electric (ie, power) brush designs are available, including brushes with advanced technologies de‐ signed to improve mechanical plaque removal and the brushing ex‐ perience. The oscillating‐rotating (O‐R) brush technology has been thoroughly researched and systematic reviews show it is more effec‐ tive for removing dental plaque and reducing gingivitis than a manual brush.[6]. There is evidence that O‐R brushes reduce plaque and gingivitis more than sonic brushes in the short term.[7]

Methods

Findings

Discussion

Conclusion