Review Article

Powered Toothbrushes: An Opportunity for Biofilm and Gingival Inflammation Control

Table 5

Characteristics of studies that compared the effectiveness of powered toothbrushes in individuals with special needs.

Study (author, reference)Study designTest group (toothbrush model, mechanism of action, n subject)Control group (toothbrush model, n subject )Inclusion criteriaBrushing timeOutcomes of interest (clinical indexes)Experimental timesMain result

Vajawat et al. [47]Clinical microbiological studyColgate 360° sonic power toothbrush, Colgate-Palmolive Company, New York, NY, USA (sonic);N = 20; age: mean, 18.6 yearsColgate 360° toothbrush, Colgate-Palmolive Company, New York, NY, USA) N = 20; age: mean, 17.7 yearsPatients diagnosed with autism in the age group ≥15 years, with a minimum of 20 teeth, no prior experience of using a powered toothbrush, and willing to participate were selected.3 minutesANOVA was used to compare the mean plaque and gingival scores between the test and control groups. Chi-square test and McNemar test were used to assess the difference between the detection rates of P. gingivalis, T. forsythia, and T. denticola at baseline and 4 weeks.at baseline, 1, 4, and 12 weeksIn patients with autism spectrum disorder, powered toothbrushes result in a significant overall improvement in plaque control and gingival health, when constant reinforcement of OHI is given. However, there was no difference in the detection rate of red complex organisms between the groups.
Silva et al. [49]Randomized crossover trialTechline EDA-01, Techline, São Paulo, Brazil (powered oscillating/rotating); N = 16; age: 6 to 14 years. Each participant used one of the toothbrushes and then, after a 7-day washout period, used the other type.Dental Brush Medfio Slide Pro, Medfio, Pinhais, Brazil; N = 16; age: 6 to 14 yearsHaving good periodontal health confirmed by the dentist responsible for the individuals’ oral health care, being between six and 14 years old, 25 and having at least one tooth in each sextant.2 minutesThe Quigley Hein Index (modified by Turesky et al.) was used to quantify biofilm. Basic fuchsin dye solution (Replak ® , Dentsply, York, USA) was used before and after each toothbrushing. Behavioral assessment was carried out using the Frankl Behavior Scale7-day period with each type with 7-day washout period in between.The use of powered or manual toothbrush had no effect on the quantity of dental biofilm removed in children and teenagers with DS, nor did it influence their cooperation during the procedure.
García-Carrillo et al. [50]Cluster-randomized clinical trialSonicare EasyClean, Philips, Eindhoven, The Netherlands (sonic); 17 males; 11 females; 4 smokers; age: mean, 34.5 yearsVitis Access, Dentaid, Barcelona, Spain; 17 males; 7 females; 8 smokers; age: mean, 34.5 yearsAdults with intellectual disability categorized as borderline [intelligence quotient (IQ) >70], mild (IQ, 50-69), or moderate (IQ 35-49). Being part of psychosocial support groups under the supervision of a trained monitor (special educators, with different university degrees).2 minutesFor cluster-level analyses, demographical data were analyzed by ANOVA for continuous variables and chi-square test for categorical data. Clinical outcome variables were analyzed by repeated measures ANCOVA considering time and group as factors and respective baseline values as covariates (generalized linear model).6-month trialThe tested sonic powered toothbrush was as effective and safe as the manual toothbrush. The use of powered or manual toothbrushes, together with fluoride toothpaste, may improve plaque and gingivitis levels, in patients with mild to limited intellectual disability.
Doğan et al. [51]Comparative studyNew manual toothbrush (CrossAction; Oral‐B [35 compact, 40 regular]) and powered toothbrush with an oscillating rotating head (Braun Plaque Control 3D [Braun 3D]; Oral‐B [D15525]); N = 15; age: 6-12 yearsManual triple‐headed brush (SuperBrush; Dento Co. AS [junior, regular]) N = 15; age: 13-18 yearsMentally challenged individuals with no history of receiving antibiotic and/or antiseptic therapy. No use of supplemental plaque control aids over the previous 5 months A minimum of 20 teeth present with no interposed edentulous spaces or loss of interdental contacts. In same range of intelligence and ability to brush their own teeth3 minutesThe Quigley and Hein (QH) Plaque Index and the Approximal Plaque Index (API) were used to assess the oral hygiene status of each participant.After 1 week of application, a week of washout before each group switched to the next type of toothbrush. The study lasted for 5 weeks.The study indicated that the powered toothbrush is the most effective for removing dental plaque in mentally disabled children, whereas the SuperBrush is a good alternative
Vandana et al. [52]Comparative evaluation, subject as own controlColgate 360° sonic brush; 20 males; 10 females; age: 15 and 30 yearsManual brushing (MB) in its inactive state (power button: off). (Colgate 360° sonic brush) 20 males; 10 females; age: 15 and 30 yearsPatients with at least 20 teeth, pre-brushing score of 1.5 or more (modification of Quigley-Hein Plaque Index [QPI]), mild to moderate gingivitis (according to modified gingival index [MGI], scoring criteria: 2, 3) and mild to moderate degree of mental retardation (according to Stanford-Binet scale: mild retardation: 55-69, moderate retardation: 40-54).2-3 minutesThe clinical and microbial parameters recorded were subjected to statistical analysis using Mann-Whitney and Pearson correlation tests.The recording of all clinical and microbial parameters was done on day 0 and day 21, while the clinical parameters were recorded up to day 45.On intragroup comparison, throughout the study phases, both manual and powered brushing significantly reduced the Quigley-Hein Plaque Index (48%), Gingival Bleeding Index (GBI) (44%), and modified Gingival Index (52%). The Pearson correlation between GBI and periodontal pathogens like Prevotella internedia, Porphyromonas gingivalis, and Fusobacterium nucleatum showed statistically significant relation (p < 0.05) in the powered brushing group.
Goyal et al. [48]Randomized crossover clinical trialOral-B Cross Action Power (7200 rpm: medium) N = 16; 10 males; 6 females; age: 15-25 years. In group A, manual toothbrush was assigned for the first 3 months followed by powered toothbrush for next 3 months. The order was reversed in group B—powered toothbrush was used for the first 3 months, followed by manual toothbrush for the next 3 monthsManual toothbrush N=16; 10 males; 6 females; age: 15-25 yearsMentally challenged patients with at least 20 teeth. Patients whose parents/ principal will sign on consent form.2-3 minutes.The clinical scoring procedure was used to assess plaque formation was the plaque index (Sillness and Loe, 1964) and to assess gingivitis was the Loe and Sillness Gingival Index (L-S index, 1963).6-month evaluation of the plaque and gingival scores was done at the end of 1, 2, and 3 months for both the groups.For mentally challenged individuals, manual toothbrushes reinforced with audiovisual instructions for brushing may be comparable to the use of powered toothbrushes. Comparison of mean plaque and gingival scores of manual and powered toothbrushes at different intervals in both groups were not statistically significant.
Smith et al. [53]Randomized clinical trialSonicare Advance 4300, Philips Oral Healthcare, Snoqualmie, Wash., USA (sonic) at least twice a day; N = 11; age: under 10 yearsUsual home care with manual brushes at least twice a day; N = 12; age: under 10 yearsPatients that had received a renal transplant more than 1 year previouslyDescriptive analyses were used to report group characteristics, and group comparability was examined by t-test (age) and chi-square (gender, race/ethnicity, time since transplantation, use of calcium channel blockers, baseline oral hygiene, and baseline DIGO), with significant differences noted at .12 monthsAfter 12 months, the control group had significantly more severe pediatric patients with drug-induced gingival overgrowth than did the sonic tooth brushing and oral hygiene instruction group. Of the risk factors considered, only male gender was significantly associated with worse outcome. The use of a powered toothbrush, together with oral hygiene instruction, may be an important component of health maintenance for pediatric transplant patients on ciclosporin.