Clinical development and evolution in plaque removal performance of a battery powered toothbrush

• Published in: Journal of clinical periodontology Vol. 31; no. 10; pp. 835 - 839
• Main Authors: Claydon, N., Moran, J., Newcombe, R. G., Smith, S. R., Addy, M.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Oxford, UK Munksgaard International Publishers 01.10.2004
• Subjects: Adult; clinical trial; Cross-Over Studies; Dental Devices, Home Care; Dental Plaque - prevention & control; Dental Plaque - therapy; Dental Plaque Index; Electricity; Equipment Design; Female; Humans; Male; oral hygiene; plaque; powered toothbrush; Single-Blind Method; Toothbrushing - instrumentation
• ISSN: 0303-6979; 1600-051X
• DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2004.00596.x

Background and aim: There is growing evidence that the new generation of electric toothbrushes are more effective than manual toothbrushes. The primary aim of these studies was to compare, as an indication of the stage of development, the plaque removal properties of a prototype battery powered toothbrush with an established product. A secondary aim was to utilise the data to appraise plaque accumulation together with the patterns of removal. Method: The three studies presented used the same, single‐examiner, randomised, single‐blind cross‐over design involving up to 24 healthy volunteers. The prototype brushes, E6500 versions s1, s2 and s3 and E8000 with head speeds of 6500 and 8000 oscillations/min were compared with a similar design marketed product (MP) with a head speed of 8800 oscillations/min. All brushes had circular brush heads with oscillating rotating actions. Subjects accumulated plaque over a 4‐day period during which no oral hygiene measures were performed. On day 4, the plaque accumulation was scored by index. Subjects then used the allocated toothbrush for 2 min. This was followed by a re‐scoring of the remaining plaque. Results: Studies 1 and 2 showed significantly less plaque removed by prototype E6500 (s1) and prototype E6500 (s2), respectively, than by MP. In study 3, prototype E8000 removed similar quantities of plaque to MP (approximately 65%). In contrast prototype E6500 (s3) only removed 60% of accrued plaque. Differences, however, did not reach statistical significance. Conclusions: The study methodology was appropriate to distinguish between the study toothbrushes and was furthermore able to establish a level of comparability for one of the prototype modifications with a similar MP.