Long-term comparison of the efficacy of manual versus powered tooth brushing in adolescent orthodontic patients: a single-centre, parallel design randomized clinical trial.
gingival
index
manual
plaque
powered
tooth brush
Journal
European journal of orthodontics
ISSN: 1460-2210
Titre abrégé: Eur J Orthod
Pays: England
ID NLM: 7909010
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 Nov 2023
30 Nov 2023
Historique:
medline:
1
12
2023
pubmed:
14
9
2023
entrez:
14
9
2023
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
To-date, there is no evidence comparing the long-term efficacy of powered and manual toothbrushes in adolescents undergoing fixed appliance treatment. The trial compared the efficacy of manual versus powered toothbrush in controlling plaque and gingival health in patients undergoing fixed treatment in respect of both the short- and long-term. This was a randomized, parallel, controlled single-blind clinical trial, undertaken in a hospital setting, for which the consolidated standards of reporting trials guidelines were followed. Ninety-two adolescent participants planned to undergo fixed appliance therapy, were randomly assigned to either a manual or powered toothbrush, with allocation concealment. The outcome measures were plaque and gingival indices and bleeding on probing, assessed at baseline (prior to fixed appliance), one-, six- and 12-months. The final sample included 84 participants, aged 12-18 (M=14.1, SD=1.93) years, with 40 (47%) were using a manual and 44 (52%) a powered toothbrush. The intervention (powered vs. manual toothbrush) itself appeared insignificant with regards to the gingival index (GI) (95%CI -0.1 - 0.03; P=0.26), plaque index (PI) (95%CI -0.13 - 0.14; P=0.93) and bleeding on probing (BoP) (95%CI -0.03 - 0.03; P=0.98) at any of the time points assessed. However, periodontal health indicators and plaque control significantly worsened (p<0.01), over the 12-month follow-up period, following placement of the fixed appliances placement. Whilst no differences were found between manual and powered toothbrushes in controlling plaque and gingival health, in participants undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment, both were suboptimal and highlighted the need for greater patient support and monitoring. https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN74268923 Trial funding: Colgate-Palmolive (USA).
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
To-date, there is no evidence comparing the long-term efficacy of powered and manual toothbrushes in adolescents undergoing fixed appliance treatment. The trial compared the efficacy of manual versus powered toothbrush in controlling plaque and gingival health in patients undergoing fixed treatment in respect of both the short- and long-term.
TRIAL DESIGN
METHODS
This was a randomized, parallel, controlled single-blind clinical trial, undertaken in a hospital setting, for which the consolidated standards of reporting trials guidelines were followed.
METHODS
METHODS
Ninety-two adolescent participants planned to undergo fixed appliance therapy, were randomly assigned to either a manual or powered toothbrush, with allocation concealment. The outcome measures were plaque and gingival indices and bleeding on probing, assessed at baseline (prior to fixed appliance), one-, six- and 12-months.
RESULTS
RESULTS
The final sample included 84 participants, aged 12-18 (M=14.1, SD=1.93) years, with 40 (47%) were using a manual and 44 (52%) a powered toothbrush. The intervention (powered vs. manual toothbrush) itself appeared insignificant with regards to the gingival index (GI) (95%CI -0.1 - 0.03; P=0.26), plaque index (PI) (95%CI -0.13 - 0.14; P=0.93) and bleeding on probing (BoP) (95%CI -0.03 - 0.03; P=0.98) at any of the time points assessed. However, periodontal health indicators and plaque control significantly worsened (p<0.01), over the 12-month follow-up period, following placement of the fixed appliances placement.
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
Whilst no differences were found between manual and powered toothbrushes in controlling plaque and gingival health, in participants undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment, both were suboptimal and highlighted the need for greater patient support and monitoring.
TRIAL REGISTRATION DETAILS
UNASSIGNED
https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN74268923 Trial funding: Colgate-Palmolive (USA).
Identifiants
pubmed: 37708303
pii: 7273991
doi: 10.1093/ejo/cjad042
doi:
Types de publication
Randomized Controlled Trial
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
808-817Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Orthodontic Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.