CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 49Oral microbiology and periodontitis researchDental Health and Care UtilizationOrthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics

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

Open access
Erbe, Christina, Klees, Violetta, Braunbeck, Fabienne, Ferrari-Peron, Priscila, Ccahuana-Vasquez, Renzo A., Timm, Hans, Grender, Julie, Cunningham, Pamela +2 more·2019·American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
DOI 10.1016/j.ajodo.2018.12.013
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this 2-arm parallel trial was to determine the plaque removal efficacy (main outcome) and the motivation assessment (secondary outcome) comparing a manual versus an interactive power toothbrush in orthodontic patients. METHODS: Sixty adolescents with fixed orthodontic appliances in both arches were randomized in a 1:1 ratio in this parallel, randomized, examiner-blind controlled clinical trial. Eligibility criteria included at least 16 natural teeth, 1-6 "focus care areas," plaque score of ≥1.75, no severe caries, gingivitis and periodontitis, no dental prophylaxis, no smoking, no antibiotics, and no chlorhexidine mouth rinse. Subjects were to brush unsupervised with either an interactive power toothbrush (Oral-B Professional Care 6000, D36/EB20) with Bluetooth technology or a regular manual toothbrush (Oral-B Indicator 35 soft). Focus care areas were each brushed for 10 additional seconds. Plaque removal was assessed with the use of the Turesky Modification of the Quigley-Hein Plaque Index (TMQHPI) to determine change from baseline at 2 and 6 weeks. Supervised brushing at screening and post-treatment visits recorded actual brushing times. Subject-reported motivational aspects were recorded at screening and week 6. RESULTS: Fifty-nine subjects aged 13-17 years completed the study. The interactive power toothbrush provided significantly (P <0.001) greater plaque reduction versus the manual toothbrush at 2 and 6 weeks according to the whole-mouth TMQHPI. The treatment difference in adjusted mean plaque change from baseline was 0.777 (95% CI 0.614-0.940) at week 2 and 0.834 (0.686-0.981) at week 6. Mean reductions in the number of focus care areas were also significantly greater (P <0.001) in the power brush group at weeks 2 and 6. Brushing times increased significantly at weeks 2 and 6 (P ≤0.013) versus baseline in the interactive power brush group only. Subject-reported motivation was significantly increased in the interactive power brush group at week 6 versus screening (P ≤0.005). CONCLUSIONS: An interactive power toothbrush generated increased brushing times and significantly greater plaque removal versus a manual brush.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ajodo.2018.12.013

Cites

40 of 40 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Erbe, C., Klees, V., Braunbeck, F., Ferrari-Peron, P., Ccahuana-Vasquez, R. A., Timm, H., Grender, J., Cunningham, P., Adam, R., & Wehrbein, H.
Affiliations
  • Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (DE)
  • Procter & Gamble (Germany) (DE)
  • Procter & Gamble (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Erbe, Christina
ORCID
Erbe, Christina
Venue
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-04
Volume
155
Issue
4
Pages
462-472
ISSN
0889-5406 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.ajodo.2018.12.013
OpenAlex
W2931885255
Cited by
49
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 1
FWCI
6.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Procter & Gamble Company
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Periodontics › Oral microbiology and periodontitis research
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Periodontics › Dental Health and Care Utilization
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Orthodontics › Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
Keywords
manual toothbrush, dental plaque removal, oral hygiene, fixed orthodontic appliances, adolescents, brushing time, orthodontic patients, plaque reduction, oral health behavior change
MeSH terms
Orthodontic Appliances, Fixed, Adolescent, Dental Plaque, Dental Plaque Index, Female, Humans, Male, Motivation, Toothbrushing, Single-Blind Method

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review