Long-term comparison of the efficacy of manual versus powered tooth brushing in adolescent orthodontic patients: a single-centre, parallel design randomized clinical trial.

Abstract

To-date, there is no evidence comparing the long-term efficacy of powered and manual toothbrushes in adolescents undergoing fixed appliance treatment. The trial compared the efficacy of manual versus powered toothbrush in controlling plaque and gingival health in patients undergoing fixed treatment in respect of both the short- and long-term. This was a randomized, parallel, controlled single-blind clinical trial, undertaken in a hospital setting, for which the consolidated standards of reporting trials guidelines were followed. Ninety-two adolescent participants planned to undergo fixed appliance therapy, were randomly assigned to either a manual or powered toothbrush, with allocation concealment. The outcome measures were plaque and gingival indices and bleeding on probing, assessed at baseline (prior to fixed appliance), one-, six- and 12-months. The final sample included 84 participants, aged 12-18 (M=14.1, SD=1.93) years, with 40 (47%) were using a manual and 44 (52%) a powered toothbrush. The intervention (powered vs. manual toothbrush) itself appeared insignificant with regards to the gingival index (GI) (95%CI -0.1 - 0.03; P=0.26), plaque index (PI) (95%CI -0.13 - 0.14; P=0.93) and bleeding on probing (BoP) (95%CI -0.03 - 0.03; P=0.98) at any of the time points assessed. However, periodontal health indicators and plaque control significantly worsened (p<0.01), over the 12-month follow-up period, following placement of the fixed appliances placement. Whilst no differences were found between manual and powered toothbrushes in controlling plaque and gingival health, in participants undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment, both were suboptimal and highlighted the need for greater patient support and monitoring. https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN74268923 Trial funding: Colgate-Palmolive (USA).