Open AccessPlaque removal by a novel prototype power toothbrush versus a manual toothbrush: A randomized, exploratory clinical study
Author(s) -
GomezPereira Paola,
Axe Alyson,
Butler Andrew,
Qaqish Jimmy,
Goyal Chhaju R.
Publication year - 2022
Publication title -
clinical and experimental dental research
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.464
H-Index - 9
ISSN - 2057-4347
DOI - 10.1002/cre2.556
Subject(s) - toothbrush , medicine , dentistry , dental plaque , gingival margin , confidence interval , orthodontics , brush , materials science , composite material
Objectives This exploratory study investigated plaque removal with a prototype constant, low rotation speed Power Toothbrush (PTB) with two brushing actions: “Gumline” (head rotates in the horizontal axis) and “Interdental” (head rotates in the vertical axis). Gumline alone and “Combined” (Gumline + Interdental) modes were compared with a Reference PTB and a Reference Manual Toothbrush (MTB) after one brushing. Materials and Methods Thirty‐nine participants were randomized to use each toothbrush once either in the sequence (A) Prototype PTB (in Gumline then Combined mode), (B) reference MTB, and (C) reference PTB or the sequence BAC. There was a minimum 3‐day washout between the use of each toothbrush. Plaque removal was measured using the Rustogi Modified Navy Dental Plaque Index (RMNPI) with change from baseline investigated using an analysis of covariance model. RMNPI scores were calculated on a “whole mouth” basis and along the gingival margin and at proximal sites only. Results For the primary efficacy variable, a significant difference was found in favor of the prototype PTB in gumline mode versus the reference MTB for whole mouth plaque score (difference: −0.06; standard error: 0.014; 95% confidence interval [CI] −0.09 to −0.04; p < .0001). Similar significant differences were found in gingival margin and proximal areas ( p < .0001). The prototype PTB in gumline mode removed significantly less plaque than the prototype PTB in combined mode and the reference PTB ( p < .0001; whole mouth/gingival/proximal areas). The prototype PTB in combined mode removed significantly more plaque than the reference MTB ( p < .0001; whole mouth/gingival/proximal areas) and the reference PTB for whole mouth ( p = .0214) and gingival margin areas ( p = .0010). The reference PTB also removed significantly more plaque than the reference MTB ( p < .0001; whole mouth/gingival/proximal areas). All brushes were generally well‐tolerated. Conclusion The prototype PTB design, providing two distinct cleaning modalities, can effectively remove plaque to a significantly higher degree than an MTB and a marketed PTB, depending on mode.