cris.boxmetadata.label.title
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
cris.boxmetadata.label.dateissued
01 browse.startsWith.months.april 2019
cris.boxmetadata.label.accesslevel
open access
cris.boxmetadata.label.resourcetype
journal article
cris.boxmetadata.label.authors
Erbe C.
Klees V.
Braunbeck F.
Ferrari-Peron P.
Timm H.
Grender J.
Cunningham P.
Adam R.
Wehrbein H.
Procter & Gamble Company
cris.boxmetadata.label.publisher
Mosby Inc.
cris.boxmetadata.label.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.
cris.boxmetadata.label.citationstartpage
462
cris.boxmetadata.label.citationendpage
472
cris.boxmetadata.label.volume
155
cris.boxmetadata.label.issue
4
cris.boxmetadata.label.language
English
cris.boxmetadata.label.ocdeknowledgeArea
Odontología, Cirugía oral, Medicina oral
cris.boxmetadata.label.doi
cris.boxmetadata.label.scopusidentifier
2-s2.0-85063436414
cris.boxmetadata.label.pubmedidentifier
cris.boxmetadata.label.source
American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics
cris.boxmetadata.label.containerissn
08895406
cris.boxmetadata.label.sponsor
Funding: The study was supported by the Procter & Gamble Company. Funding: The study was supported by the Procter & Gamble Company. The authors thank Shelly Campbell for contributions to the manuscript preparation and language-editing services. Funding: The study was supported by the Procter & Gamble Company.
peru-layout.shadow-copies Directorio de Producción Científica Scopus