Abstract
ObjectivesIn adult participants, what is, following a single brushing exercise, the efficacy of a powered toothbrush (PTB) as compared to a manual toothbrush (MTB) on plaque removal?MethodsMEDLINE‐PubMed and Cochrane‐CENTRAL were searched from inception to February 2019. The inclusion criteria were (randomized) controlled clinical trials conducted in human subjects ≥18 years of age, in good general health and without periodontitis, orthodontic treatment, implants and/or removable prosthesis. Papers evaluating a PTB compared with a MTB in a single brushing exercise were included. When plaque scores were assessed according to the Quigley‐Hein plaque index (Q&HPI) or the Rustogi modified Navy plaque index (RMNPI). From the eligible studies, data were extracted. A meta‐analysis and subanalysis for brands and mode of action being oscillating‐rotating (OR) and side‐to‐side (SS) were performed when feasible.ResultsIndependent screening of 3450 unique papers resulted in 17 eligible publications presenting 36 comparisons. In total, 28 comparisons assessed toothbrushing efficacy according to the Q&HPI and eight comparisons used the RMNPI. Results showed a significant effect in favour of the PTB. The difference of Means (DiffM) was −0.14 (P < 0.001; 95%CI [−0.19; −0.09]) for the Q&HPI and −0.10 (P < 0.001; 95%CI [−0.14; −0.06]) for the RMNPI, respectively. The subanalysis on the OR mode of action showed a DiffM −0.16 (P < 0.001; 95%CI [−0.22, −0.10]) for the Q&HPI. For the SS mode of action using RMNPI, the DiffM showed −0.10 (P < 0.001; 95%CI [−0.15; −0.05]). The subanalysis for brands showed for the P&G OR PTB using the Q&HPI a DiffM of −0.15 (P < 0.001; 95%CI [−0.22; −0.08]) and the Colgate SS for RMNPI showed a DiffM of −0.15 (P < 0.001; 95%CI [−0.18; −0.12]).ConclusionThere is moderate certainty that the PTB was more effective than the MTB with respect to plaque removal following a single brushing exercise independent of the plaque index scale that was used.
Highlights
It is well established that natural oral self‐cleaning mechanisms have no significant effect on dental plaque formation
The subanalysis for brands showed for the Procter & Gamble (P&G) Powered tooth‐ brushes (PTB) with the OR technology using the Quigley‐Hein plaque index (Q&HPI) a difference of means (DiffM) of −0.15 (P < 0.001; 95%CI [−0.22; −0.08])
There is moderate certainty that the PTB was more effective than the manual toothbrush (MTB) with respect to plaque removal following a single brushing exercise independent of the plaque index score that was used
Summary
It is well established that natural oral self‐cleaning mechanisms have no significant effect on dental plaque formation. The number of marketed products increases, and the volume of published clinical research data pertain‐ ing to the efficacy of these new designs continues to expand.[6] Whether powered brushing is superior to manual brushing has for long been a subject to controversy, as studies have demonstrated conflicting results.[7] the PTB has become an established al‐ ternative to the MTB.[8] The Cochrane Collaboration showed that the PTB is more effective in the reduction of plaque and gingivitis. This is based on studies with an evaluation time of 3 months or longer.[8]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
