Powered Toothbrushes: An Opportunity for Biofilm and Gingival Inflammation Control

Rösing, Cassiano Kuchenbecker; Garduño, Eduardo; Bussadori, Sandra Kalil; Zerón, Agustín; Soares, Paulo Vinícius; Saadia, Marc; Villar, Cristina Cunha

doi:https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/6874144

International Journal of Dentistry

On this page

Abstract Introduction Data Availability Disclosure Conflicts of Interest References Copyright Related Articles

Review Article | Open Access

Volume 2022 | Article ID 6874144 | https://doi.org/10.1155/2022/6874144

Powered Toothbrushes: An Opportunity for Biofilm and Gingival Inflammation Control

Cassiano Kuchenbecker Rösing,¹Eduardo Garduño,²Sandra Kalil Bussadori,³Agustín Zerón,⁴Paulo Vinícius Soares,⁵Marc Saadia,⁶and Cristina Cunha Villar⁷

Academic Editor: Alejandro Pelaez Vargas

Received06 May 2021

Revised09 Jun 2022

Accepted13 Jul 2022

Published22 Aug 2022

Abstract

The present review aimed at a broad investigation on the potential of powered as compared to manual toothbrushes in different aspects of clinical dentistry. Studies evaluating plaque and gingival inflammatory parameters were included, as well as those that investigated adverse effects. Emphasis was given separately to adults, youngsters, special-needs patients, and those under fixed orthodontic therapy. In general, comparisons favored powered toothbrushes. In summary, approximately 68% of the included studies, in terms of plaque/gingival inflammation in adults, presented better results for powered toothbrushes. In children and special-needs populations, approximately 40% of the included studies favored powered toothbrushes for plaque/gingival inflammation, and none favored manual ones. In orthodontic individuals, 50% of the studies also demonstrated a better effect of powered toothbrushes on plaque and gingival inflammation. All included studies that assessed adverse events did not demonstrate a difference in these effects when comparing manual vs. powered toothbrushes. It is concluded that the use of powered toothbrushes is an opportunity to enhance patterns of plaque control and associated gingival inflammation.

1. Introduction

Supragingival plaque control is one of the most beneficial preventive strategies in clinical dentistry. In accordance with individual needs, the dental practitioner is responsible for motivating and instructing the patient to carry out more effective plaque control, always minimizing adverse effects. Studies consistently demonstrate that individuals with good standards of oral hygiene standards and good professional maintenance of oral health have a lower incidence of dental caries, periodontal diseases, tooth loss, and as shown more recently, better outcomes with dental implants.

A classic study performed in Sweden by Axelsson et al. clearly demonstrated that a strict oral hygiene program results in long-term maintenance of the teeth with a lower incidence of caries and periodontal breakdown [1]. Other studies also have demonstrated similar findings [2, 3]. Despite the well-established positive role of proper plaque control, optimal levels of oral hygiene are not observed in the population as a whole [4, 5].

Manual toothbrushes are the instruments most widely used for the removal of plaque. Although initially developed for situations where manual toothbrushes are not effective, especially due to impairment of motor function, powered toothbrushes are currently used as an alternative to manual toothbrushes.¹ The industry has developed different types of powered toothbrushes, and this innovative technology has evolved very rapidly. In 1998, the European Workshop on Mechanical Plaque Control carefully reviewed the evidence supporting the use of powered toothbrushes. Its conclusions included the increased ability of powered toothbrushes to remove plaque from the interproximal area; the importance of professional motivation (reinforcement) to achieve optimal results with powered toothbrushes; the safety of powered toothbrushes regarding lack of adverse effects in terms of trauma; and superior efficacy of powered toothbrushes as compared to manual ones, as demonstrated in clinical trials. The panel also concluded that toothbrush design could have a role in these results [6].

The literature supporting the use of powered toothbrushes has continuously grown. Continuous updates are needed to keep up with research and development in this area. In the present study, a panel of experts from Brazil and Mexico sought to review the best available evidence on possible indications for powered toothbrushes in clinical dentistry as of December 2020.

This is not a systematic review, since there are multiple questions and interests. Rather, it is a narrative summary of the available, published evidence comparing manual and powered toothbrushes. The authors are aware that publication bias is present and that much of this body of evidence is industry-funded. It is also acknowledged that further research and development in healthcare technologies are of utmost importance.

To compile this evidence, a systematic search of the PubMed database, combining terms of interest for the present study to find all possible articles comparing manual and powered toothbrushes, was conducted. Different terms of interest were combined in each of the topics (always having the outcome and synonyms and the exposure—manual and electric toothbrushes and synonyms). The authors scrutinized the retrieved potential articles for eligibility. For the purposes of this review, powered toothbrushes are defined as all toothbrushes that are driven by an external power source. Due to the broad spectrum of this review, the authors gave preference to clinical trials. However, in order to adopt a mechanistic approach, in vitro studies that were considered to shed some light on the theme were also included. It should also be noted that as clinical trials are included in the present review, it is of utmost importance to include information related to adverse events. This was the case in the present review, which includes possible adverse effects, especially the development of noncarious cervical lesions.

1.1. Effect of Powered Toothbrushes on Dental Biofilm/Microbial Parameters

One of the main objectives of toothbrushing is to control dental plaque buildup and, consequently, gingival inflammation. In this respect, systematic reviews with meta-analyses are highlighted to investigate the effects of manual versus powered toothbrushes on dental plaque and gingival inflammatory signs. In the study by Jager et al. [7], the results of a meta-analysis of 1,780 subjects indicated that high-frequency, high-amplitude, sonic-powered toothbrushes decreased plaque and gingivitis with significantly better effectiveness than manual toothbrushes.

Different studies have been performed to assess the effect of powered toothbrushes on microbial biofilms, using different laboratory techniques. Several technologies have been incorporated into powered toothbrushes, and a significant effect has been demonstrated for some. Table 1, for example, captures the effect of a sonic technology for powered toothbrushes against oral bacteria. It is important to understand the effects of such toothbrushes in the context of the mechanisms against oral biofilms.

1.2. Effect of Powered Toothbrushes on Dental Plaque and Associated Gingival Inflammatory Parameters in Adults

The use of powered toothbrushes has mainly been studied in adult individuals. To obtain high-quality evidence, randomized controlled clinical trials have been performed. A systematic search of the literature, including keywords related to gingivitis, gingival inflammation, and powered/powered toothbrushes, yielded 22 studies that met eligibility criteria for inclusion in this review (Table 2). From these studies, the industry has financed a significant part; however, approximately half of them are independent studies, as indicated in the conflict of interests in the publications.

A synthesis of qualitative information from these studies, chosen by presenting the comparison of interest, is presented in Table 2. Of 22 randomized clinical trials comparing different powered to manual toothbrushes, 15 (68%) demonstrated the superiority of powered toothbrushes to reduce gingival inflammation. The majority of these trials also analyzed plaque buildup and a similar tendency was observed, in which powered toothbrushes had a better effect. Only two studies (9%) demonstrated a better effect of the manual toothbrush on signs of gingival inflammation. The remaining 5 studies did not reveal statistically significant differences between powered and manual toothbrushes on gingival inflammatory parameters. When parameters related to dental plaque are observed, the same tendency of better results for powered toothbrushes is demonstrated. It should be noted that some studies have also assessed probing depth (PD), which is considered a sign of gingival inflammation as well. In this sense, since alterations in PD are possible with an increase/decrease in inflammation, this was considered in the present review.

It needs to be stressed that the present review aims to provide a general overview of the different effects of powered toothbrushes as compared to manual ones. Therefore, the inclusion of different types of brushes with different designs, several methods of analysis of both plaque and gingival inflammation, and observation periods prevent the pooling of results for meta-analysis. Summarizing the results, it could be stated that powered toothbrushes consistently provide better plaque removal and a reduction of associated gingival inflammation as compared to manual toothbrushes in studies performed on healthy adult individuals.

1.3. Adverse Effects of Powered versus Manual Toothbrushes: Possible Relationship between Toothbrush Type and Noncarious Lesions

Toothbrushing has increased worldwide as a result of oral hygiene awareness programs. One of the problems arising from this change in behavior is the occurrence of adverse effects, especially gingival recession and noncarious lesions. Studies assessing the potential impact of powered versus manual toothbrushing on the incidence of gingival recession are lacking.

The diagnosis of noncarious lesions is part of routine dental practice. These multifactorial conditions are usually related to the patient’s lifestyle, including the type of toothbrush they use. Few studies have sought to evaluate the relationship between different toothbrush types/brushing habits and the development of gingival recession, tooth abrasion, dentin hypersensitivity, and other noncarious lesions.

Although it is important to study the type of toothbrush used, it is also essential to note that differences in the results obtained with different toothbrushes are also modified by brushing variables, such as timing, frequency, and brushing force. In addition, variations in bristle characteristics, such as filament stiffness and end-rounding, have been assumed to influence factors such as hard and soft tissue abrasion [34].

Even though anecdotal information is available from studies related to toothbrushing and adverse events, the body of evidence is still weak, with the majority of studies not evaluating these parameters. Some systematic reviews suggested that there were insufficient data to support or refute the association between different toothbrushes and noninflammatory gingival recession [35]. Most studies claim that the use of powered toothbrushes implies that less force is applied while brushing. However, very few of these studies have shown a significant difference in the incidence or regression of noncarious lesions such as gingival recession, even with less force applied while brushing. This information is also available from a study that solely used powered toothbrushes. It should be emphasized that a very low number of studies have assessed adverse events related to powered toothbrushes. Therefore, the findings from this study are considered warranted. [36].

When the act of toothbrushing is assessed in isolation (excepting cases of abusive use, e.g., excess use of abrasive dentifrice), clinically significant effects on tooth surface loss are seen [37]. Gingival abrasions can be found in clinical trials of both manual and powered toothbrushes [38].

Therefore, additional laboratory and clinical trials are needed to better evaluate the role of toothbrush type in the development of noncarious lesions (35). What is already known is that individual use of inappropriate brushing techniques is more closely related to the onset of noncarious lesions than the type of toothbrush itself [38].

Five studies included in the present review assessed this potential role. A summary is given in Table 3.

1.4. Effect of Powered Toothbrushes on Dental Plaque in the Youngster Population

Our search of the available literature (Table 4) yielded 5 studies that comparatively evaluated powered versus manual toothbrushes in youngsters. As a whole, there is moderate-quality evidence that powered toothbrushes provide a greater benefit than or benefit equal to manual toothbrushes for children. Both powered and manual toothbrushes remove plaque with reasonable efficacy in this population. Regarding plaque control, 2 of the 5 included studies demonstrated the superiority of powered toothbrushes over manual ones in reducing plaque in children. Of the remaining 3 studies, all described powered and manual toothbrushes as equivalent in this respect. However, within the analyses of individual studies, powered toothbrushes generally tended to perform better. However, the clinical significance of these results remains unclear, and additional research is warranted. It is worth mentioning that this result refers to data collected from various types and brands of powered toothbrushes, including toothbrushes with oscillating, rotating, sonic, and ionic actions; that the age of the patients ranged between 6 to 25 years; and that brushing techniques and brushing time varied.

1.5. Effect of Powered Toothbrushes on Dental Plaque in Special-Needs Populations

Optimal levels of plaque control are of utmost importance at all ages to achieve adequate levels of oral health. However, mechanical strategies for plaque control often fail to achieve the desired or optimal levels. This is especially true for individuals that lack motor skills or that have special needs. For these reasons, powered toothbrushes have a definite indication for patients lacking fine motor skills, such as those with certain disabilities and autism [47].

The adequacy of plaque control depends on patient adherence. In physically or mentally disabled individuals, difficulties in oral hygiene maintenance are common enough that oral hygiene practices may need to be simplified or modified to suit the individual situation [48].

In the present review, it is inferred that there is moderate-quality evidence that powered toothbrushes provide a greater or equal benefit than manual brushes in special-needs patients. Indeed, both manual and powered toothbrushes decrease levels of plaque and gingival inflammation in this population. Among the 7 clinical trials comparing the effects of powered and manual toothbrushes on plaque control in special-needs individuals, which were included in this review (Table 5), 3 studies demonstrated a superiority of powered over manual toothbrushes in reducing plaque and gingival inflammation. In the remaining 4 studies, an equivalence between powered and manual toothbrushes (or individualized manuals) was observed. It is noteworthy that this result refers to data collected from various types of powered toothbrushes, including toothbrushes with oscillating, rotating, sonic, and ionic actions, and that the age of the patients ranged widely (6 to 34.5 years), as did brushing techniques and times. It must however be taken into account that the type and level of disability of the participants of the included studies also varied. In this sense, each work should be carefully read and understood, with the clinical perspective of to whom these results should apply.

The results encountered herein demonstrate a tendency toward better results with the use of powered toothbrushes by individuals with special needs. This result should be interpreted in light of the concept of personalized oral care, in which each individual needs to be evaluated and monitored over time in order to understand the clinical benefit of each preventive or therapeutic measure.

1.6. Effect of Powered Toothbrushes on Dental Plaque/Gingival Inflammatory Signs or Demineralization in Orthodontic Patients

Fixed orthodontic appliances unquestionably increase the difficulty of self-performed mechanical plaque control. In this sense, all attempts to enhance the quality of oral hygiene should be pursued, including the use of powered toothbrushes. This review included 8 studies assessing this population (Table 6). The vast majority of studies (all but one) evaluated the effect on plaque control and/or gingival inflammatory signs. The remaining studies [54] focused on dental caries and demineralization of enamel surfaces. Half of the studies (including the one focusing on demineralization) demonstrated the superiority of powered toothbrushes compared to manual toothbrushes. Three studies demonstrated the equivalence of the effect of powered and manual toothbrushes [58–60], and one study [55] showed a better effect of manual toothbrushes.

Similar to the other topics of the present review, even though there is no consensus, there is a trend toward better effects with powered toothbrushes. These results should always be interpreted with caution in terms of effect size. In this topic, motivation has also been studied, and it has been suggested that powered toothbrushes present an interesting result in this respect, suggesting superiority. In summary, there is a role for powered toothbrushes for individuals under fixed orthodontic therapy.

2. Concluding Remarks

The present narrative review of the literature sought to increase awareness among dental care practitioners about the effects of powered toothbrushes as compared to manual ones. It is well known that oral hygiene methods should be individualized, and, therefore, each individual should be advised by his or her dentist or dental hygienist about which would be more suitable.

The results found in this review are generally consistent with the superiority of powered toothbrushes as compared to manual ones, especially concerning dental plaque removal and associated reduction of gingival inflammation. Table 7 summarizes the evidence included in the present review in the different areas of interest assessed.

The studies included in this review observed the effects of powered toothbrushes on adults, children, individuals with special needs, and orthodontic patients. In general, the effect of powered toothbrushes was significantly superior to that of manual toothbrushes, with no evidence of a higher incidence of adverse effects.

The vast majority of included studies did not look for patient-centered outcomes, motivation, satisfaction, etc. In this sense, additional studies are warranted. The findings of this narrative review suggest that the powered toothbrush is a very promising alternative for self-performed plaque control.

Data Availability

The data are available on Pubmed.

Disclosure

The present review was performed with the support of Colgate Palmolive.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

P. Axelsson, B. Nystrom, and J. Lindhe, “The long-term effect of a plaque control program on tooth mortality, caries and periodontal disease in adults. Results after 30 years of maintenance,” Journal of Clinical Periodontology, vol. 31, no. 9, pp. 749–757, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
B. Rosling, G. Serino, M. K. Hellstrom, S. S. Socransky, and J. Lindhe, “Longitudinal periodontal tissue alterations during supportive therapy. Findings from subjects with normal and high susceptibility to periodontal disease,” Journal of Clinical Periodontology, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 241–249, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Jepsen, T. Berglundh, R. Genco et al., “Primary prevention of peri-implantitis: managing peri-implant mucositis,” Journal of Clinical Periodontology, vol. 42, pp. S152–S157, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Carvajal, M. Gomez, S. Gomes et al., “Prevalence, severity, and risk indicators of gingival inflammation in a multi-center study on South American adults: a cross sectional study,” Journal of Applied Oral Science, vol. 24, no. 5, pp. 524–534, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. R. Elias-Boneta, M. J. Toro, S. Rivas-Tumanyan, A. B. Rajendra-Santosh, M. Brache, and C.J. R. Collins, “Prevalence, severity, and risk factors of gingival inflammation in Caribbean adults: a multi-city, cross-sectional study,” Puerto Rico Health Sciences Journal, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 115–123, 2018.
View at: Google Scholar
G. A. Van der Weijden, M. F. Timmerman, M. M. Danser, and U. van der Velden, “The role of electric toothbrushes: advantages and limitations,” in Proceedings of the European Workshop on Mechanical Plaque Control, pp. 138–155, Quintessence, Michigan, USA, 1998.
View at: Google Scholar
M. de Jager, A. Rmaile, O. Darch, and J. W. Bikker, “The effectiveness of manual versus high-frequency, high-amplitude sonic powered toothbrushes for oral health: a meta-analysis,” Journal of Clinical Dentistry, vol. 28, pp. A13–A28, 2017.
View at: Google Scholar
J. C. Schmidt, C. Zaugg, R. Weiger, and C. Walter, “Brushing without brushing?--a review of the efficacy of powered toothbrushes in noncontact biofilm removal,” Clinical Oral Investigations, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 687–709, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. C. Schmidt, M. Astasov-Frauenhoffer, I. Hauser-Gerspach et al., “Efficacy of various side-to-side toothbrushes for noncontact biofilm removal,” Clinical Oral Investigations, vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 793–800, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. C. Schmidt, M. Astasov Frauenhoffer, T. Waltimo, R. Weiger, and C. Walter, “PR436: influence of toothbrush amplitude on noncontact biofilm removal,” Journal of Clinical Periodontology, vol. 45, no. S19, p. 267, 2018.
View at: Google Scholar
C. K. Hope and M. Wilson, “Comparison of the interproximal plaque removal efficacy of two powered toothbrushes using in vitro oral biofilms,” American Journal of Dentistry, vol. 15, pp. 7B–11B, 2002.
View at: Google Scholar
J. Grender, C. Ram Goyal, J. Qaqish, and R. Adam, “An 8-week randomized controlled trial comparing the effect of a novel oscillating-rotating toothbrush versus a manual toothbrush on plaque and gingivitis,” International Dental Journal, vol. 70, pp. S7–S15, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. Bianco, F. Romano, M. Maggiora et al., “Effect of sonic versus manual supervised toothbrushing on both clinical and biochemical profiles of patients with desquamative gingivitis associated with oral lichen planus: a randomized controlled trial,” International Journal of Dental Hygiene, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 161–169, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. Mirza, K. Argosino, M. Ward, S. S. Ou, K. R. Milleman, and J. L. Milleman, “A comparison of the effect of two power toothbrushes on the reduction of gingival inflammation and supragingival plaque,” Journal of Clinical Dentistry, vol. 30, pp. A9–15, 2019.
View at: Google Scholar
R. A. Ccahuana-Vasquez, R. Adam, E. Conde et al., “A 5-week randomized clinical evaluation of a novel electric toothbrush head with regular and tapered bristles versus a manual toothbrush for reduction of gingivitis and plaque,” International Journal of Dental Hygiene, vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 153–160, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. E. Garcia-Godoy, K. L. Flores, M. A. Klukowska, E. L. Conde, and R. W. Gerlach, “A comparison of oral hygiene products and professional care: a six-week randomized clinical trial,” Journal of Dental Hygiene, vol. 92, no. 5, pp. 45–51, 2018.
View at: Google Scholar
G. Schmalz, K. Kiehl, J. Schmickler et al., “No difference between manual and different power toothbrushes with and without specific instructions in young, oral healthy adults-results of a randomized clinical trial,” Clinical Oral Investigations, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 1147–1155, 2018.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Nathoo, LR. Mateo, P. Chaknis et al., “Efficacy of two different toothbrush heads on a sonic power toothbrush compared to a manual toothbrush on established gingivitis and plaque,” Journal of Clinical Dentistry, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 65–70, 2014.
View at: Google Scholar
J. Gallob, L. R. Mateo, P. Chaknis, B. M. Morrison, and F. Panagakos, “Randomized controlled trial comparing a powered toothbrush with distinct multi-directional cleaning action to a manual flat trim toothbrush,” American Journal of Dentistry, vol. 28, no. 6, pp. 351–356, 2015.
View at: Google Scholar
S. Nathoo, S. Mankodi, LR. Mateo, P. Chaknis, and F. Panagakos, “A clinical study comparing the supragingival plaque and gingivitis efficacy of a specially engineered sonic powered toothbrush with unique sensing and control technologies to a commercially available manual flat-trim toothbrush,” Journal of Clinical Dentistry, vol. 23 Spec No A, pp. A11–A16, 2012.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Bogren, R. P. Teles, G. Torresyap et al., “Long-term effect of the combined use of powered toothbrush and triclosan dentifrice in periodontal maintenance patients,” Journal of Clinical Periodontology, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 157–164, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Bogren, R. P. Teles, G. Torresyap, A. D. Haffajee, S. S. Socransky, and J. L. Wennstrom, “Clinical and microbiologic changes associated with the combined use of a powered toothbrush and a triclosan/copolymer dentifrice: a 3-year prospective study,” Journal of Periodontology, vol. 78, no. 9, pp. 1708–1717, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Gugerli, G. Secci, and A. Mombelli, “Evaluation of the benefits of using a power toothbrush during the initial phase of periodontal therapy,” Journal of Periodontology, vol. 78, no. 4, pp. 654–660, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. I. McCracken, L. Heasman, F. Stacey, N. Steen, M. DeJager, and P. A. Heasman, “A clinical comparison of an oscillating/rotating powered toothbrush and a manual toothbrush in patients with chronic periodontitis,” Journal of Clinical Periodontology, vol. 31, no. 9, pp. 805–812, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Zimmer, V. Nezhat, M. Bizhang, R. Seemann, and C. Barthel, “Clinical efficacy of a new sonic/ultrasonic toothbrush,” Journal of Clinical Periodontology, vol. 29, no. 6, pp. 496–500, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. R. Dentino, G. Derderian, M. Wolf et al., “Six-Month comparison of powered versus mannual toothbrushing for safety and efficacy in the absence of professional instruction in mechanical plaque control,” Journal of Periodontology, vol. 73, no. 7, pp. 770–778, 2002.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
D. Mantokoudis, A. Joss, M. M. Christensen, H. X. Meng, J. E. Suvan, and N. P. Lang, “Comparison of the clinical effects and gingival abrasion aspects of manual and electric toothbrushes,” Journal of Clinical Periodontology, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 65–72, 2008.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. D. Haffajee, M. Thompson, G. Torresyap, D. Guerrero, and S. S. Socransky, “Efficacy of manual and powered toothbrushes (I). Effect on clinical parameters,” Journal of Clinical Periodontology, vol. 28, no. 10, pp. 937–946, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. M. Aass and P. Gjermo, “Comparison of oral hygiene efficacy of one manual and two electric toothbrushes,” Acta Odontologica Scandinavica, vol. 58, no. 4, pp. 166–170, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. A. Heasman, F. Stacey, L. Heasman, P. Sellers, I. D. M. Macgregor, and PJ. Kelly, “A comparative study of the philips HP 735, braun/oral B D7 and the oral B 35 advantage toothbrushes,” Journal of Clinical Periodontology, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 85–90, 1999.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. Ainamo, Q. Xie, A. Ainamo, and P. Kallio, “Assessment of the effect of an oscillating/rotating electric toothbrush on oral health. A 12-month longitudinal study,” Journal of Clinical Periodontology, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 28–33, 1997.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. A. Weijden, M. R. Timmerman, E. Reijerse et al., “The long-term effect of an oscillating/rotating electric toothbrush on gingivitis. An 8-month clinical study,” Journal of Clinical Periodontology, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 139–145, 1994.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Quirynen, E. Vervliet, J. Teerlinck, P. Darius, and D. van Steenberghe, “Medium- and long-term effectiveness of a counterrotational electric toothbrush on plaque removal, gingival bleeding, and probing pocket depth,” The International Journal of Periodontics and Restorative Dentistry, vol. 14, no. 4, pp. 364–377, 1994.
View at: Google Scholar
A. Wiegand, F. Lemmrich, and T. Attin, “Influence of rotating-oscillating, sonic and ultrasonic action of power toothbrushes on abrasion of sound and eroded dentine,” Journal of Periodontal Research, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 221–227, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. S. Rajapakse, G. I. McCracken, E. Gwynnett, N. D. Steen, A. Guentsch, and P. A. Heasman, “Does tooth brushing influence the development and progression of non-inflammatory gingival recession? A systematic review,” Journal of Clinical Periodontology, vol. 34, no. 12, pp. 1046–1061, 2007.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. F. Hefti and C. Stone, “Power toothbrushes, gender, and dentin hypersensitivity,” Clinical Oral Investigations, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 91–97, 2000.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
F. A. Van der Weijden, S. L. Campbell, C. E. Dorfer, C. Gonzalez-Cabezas, and D. E. Slot, “Safety of oscillating-rotating powered brushes compared to manual toothbrushes: a systematic review,” Journal of Periodontology, vol. 82, no. 1, pp. 5–24, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Salzer, C. Graetz, A. Plaumann et al., “Effect of a multidirectional power toothbrush and a manual toothbrush in individuals susceptible to gingival recession: a 12-month randomized controlled clinical study,” Journal of Periodontology, vol. 87, no. 5, pp. 548–556, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. E. Dorfer, H. J. Staehle, and D. Wolff, “Three-year randomized study of manual and power toothbrush effects on pre-existing gingival recession,” Journal of Clinical Periodontology, vol. 43, no. 6, pp. 512–519, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
G. I. McCracken, L. Heasman, F. Stacey et al., “The impact of powered and manual toothbrushing on incipient gingival recession,” Journal of Clinical Periodontology, vol. 36, no. 11, pp. 950–957, 2009.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
N. A. Rosema, R. Adam, J. M. Grender, E. Van der Sluijs, S. C. Supranoto, and G. A. Van der Weijden, “Gingival abrasion and recession in manual and oscillating-rotating power brush users,” International Journal of Dental Hygiene, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 257–266, 2014.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Erbe, C. Jacobs, M. Klukowska, H. Timm, J. Grender, and H. Wehrbein, “A randomized clinical trial to evaluate the plaque removal efficacy of an oscillating-rotating toothbrush versus a sonic toothbrush in orthodontic patients using digital imaging analysis of the anterior dentition,” The Angle Orthodontist, vol. 89, no. 3, pp. 385–390, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. K. Mascarenhas, P. Soparkar, S. Al-Mutawaa, and T. M. Udani, “Plaque removal using a battery-powered toothbrush compared to a manual toothbrush,” Journal of Clinical Dentistry, vol. 16, no. 1, pp. 23–25, 2005.
View at: Google Scholar
S. Kallar, I. Pandit, N. Srivastava, and N. Gugnani, “Plaque removal efficacy of powered and manual toothbrushes under supervised and unsupervised conditions: a comparative clinical study,” Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry, vol. 29, no. 3, pp. 235–238, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Ghassemi, L. Vorwerk, W. Hooper, V. Patel, JL. Milleman, and K. R. Milleman, “Comparative plaque removal efficacy of two new powered toothbrushes and a manual toothbrush,” Journal of Clinical Dentistry, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 1–5, 2014.
View at: Google Scholar
E. Davidovich, RA. Ccahuana-Vasquez, H. Timm, J. Grender, and A. Zini, “Randomised clinical study of plaque removal efficacy of an electric toothbrush in primary and mixed dentition,” International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry, vol. 31, no. 5, pp. 657–663, 2021.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. Vajawat, PC. Deepika, V. Kumar, and P. Rajeshwari, “A clinicomicrobiological study to evaluate the efficacy of manual and powered toothbrushes among autistic patients,” Contemporary Clinical Dentistry, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 500–504, 2015.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. Goyal, BS. Thomas, K. M. Bhat, and G. S. Bhat, “Manual toothbrushing reinforced with audiovisual instruction versus powered toothbrushing among institutionalized mentally challenged subjects--a randomized cross-over clinical trial,” Medicina Oral, Patología Oral y Cirugía Bucal, vol. 16, no. 3, pp. e359–64, 2011.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. M. Silva, L. F. B. Miranda, A. S. M. AraUjo, R. R. Prado Júnior, and RF. Mendes, “Electric toothbrush for biofilm control in individuals with Down syndrome: a crossover randomized clinical trial,” Brazilian Oral Research, vol. 34, p. e057, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
A. Garcia-Carrillo, A. Jover, R. Pla et al., “Manual versus sonic powered toothbrushing in patients with intellectual disability: a cluster-randomized clinical trial,” Journal of Clinical Periodontology, vol. 43, no. 8, pp. 684–693, 2016.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. C. Dogan, A. Alacam, N. Asici, M. Odabas, and G. Seydaoglu, “Clinical evaluation of the plaque-removing ability of three different toothbrushes in a mentally disabled group,” Acta Odontologica Scandinavica, vol. 62, no. 6, pp. 350–354, 2004.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
K. L. Vandana, P. V. Tatuskar, and N. N. Valavalkar, “A comparative evaluation of manual and powered brushing on oral health and microbial status of mentally challenged individuals,” Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 362–368, 2020.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
J. M. Smith, C. S. Wong, E. B. Salamonik et al., “Sonic tooth brushing reduces gingival overgrowth in renal transplant recipients,” Pediatric Nephrology, vol. 21, no. 11, pp. 1753–1759, 2006.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
R. L. Boyd and C. M. Rose, “Effect of rotary electric toothbrush versus manual toothbrush on decalcification during orthodontic treatment,” American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, vol. 105, no. 5, pp. 450–456, 1994.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
L. M. Trimpeneers, I. A. Wijgaerts, N. A. Grognard, L. R. Dermaut, and P. A. Adriaens, “Effect of electric toothbrushes versus manual toothbrushes on removal of plaque and periodontal status during orthodontic treatment,” American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, vol. 111, no. 5, pp. 492–497, 1997.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Erbe, V. Klees, F. Braunbeck et al., “Comparative assessment of plaque removal and motivation between a manual toothbrush and an interactive power toothbrush in adolescents with fixed orthodontic appliances: a single-center, examiner-blind randomized controlled trial,” American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, vol. 155, no. 4, pp. 462–472, 2019.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
C. Erbe, M. Klukowska, I. Tsaknaki, H. Timm, J. Grender, and H. Wehrbein, “Efficacy of 3 toothbrush treatments on plaque removal in orthodontic patients assessed with digital plaque imaging: a randomized controlled trial,” American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, vol. 143, no. 6, pp. 760–766, 2013.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
M. R. Costa, V. C. da Silva, MN. Miqui, A. P. V. Colombo, and J. A. Cirelli, “Effects of ultrasonic, electric, and manual toothbrushes on subgingival plaque composition in orthodontically banded molars,” American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, vol. 137, no. 2, pp. 229–235, 2010.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
V. Thienpont, LR. Dermaut, and G. V. Maele, “Comparative study of 2 electric and 2 manual toothbrushes in patients with fixed orthodontic appliances,” American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, vol. 120, no. 4, pp. 353–360, 2001.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
P. Heasman, Z. Wilson, I. Macgregor, and P. Kelly, “Comparative study of electric and manual toothbrushes in patients with fixed orthodontic appliances,” American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, vol. 114, no. 1, pp. 45–49, 1998.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar
S. D. Heintze, P. G. Jost-Brinkmann, and J. Loundos, “Effectiveness of three different types of electric toothbrushes compared with a manual technique in orthodontic patients,” American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics, vol. 110, no. 6, pp. 630–638, 1996.
View at: Publisher Site | Google Scholar

Copyright

Copyright © 2022 Cassiano Kuchenbecker Rösing et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

PDF Download Citation

Download other formats

Order printed copies

Views

879

Downloads

734

Citations