Comparative evolution of clinical efficacy of manual tooth brush versus chewable tooth brush a randomized clinical trail

Abstract

Background: Plaque control is the daily removal of dental plaque, oral biofilms, and also prevention of their accumulation on the other parts of the oral cavity. Dental plaque is the major etiology of maximum gingival and periodontal diseases. This study is an effort to find if chewable brushing is better than manual. Objective: The objective was to evaluate and compare the efficacy of manual toothbrush and chewable toothbrush on fifty patients, in the age group of 8–12 years over a period of 28 days. Materials and Methods: This study used a randomized, double-blinding, single-center, two-treatment, parallel group, design subjects with mild to moderate plaque and gingivitis were evaluated for baseline whole mouth gingival margin and approximal plaque. Clinical assessments were performed using the Quigley-Hein Plaque Index (TQHI) and Simplified Oral Hygiene Index. Subjects received either manual or chewable toothbrush. Data were entered on to the Microsoft Excel and statically analyzed using (SPSS version 21.0 IBM, Chicago III, IL, USA). Data were evaluated by t-test with a P < 0.005 considered to be statistically significant. Results: Fifty subjects participated in the study; 25 in the manual toothbrush and 25 in the chewable toothbrush group. Both brushes demonstrated significant reductions in plaque and gingivitis over the 28 days study period (P < 0.001). The chewable toothbrush was significantly more effective than the manual toothbrush. No adverse events were observed with either brush. Conclusion: The plaque and gingivitis reduction for the chewable toothbrush were significantly greater than for the Manual toothbrush.

Is chewable toothbrush effective in terms of dental plaque reduction in children? A systematic review and meta‐analysis of randomized controlled trials

“…Brushing durations varied from 2 to 3 min. Dentifrice use was reported for the MTB group 18,22,23,25 and, in one study, for the CTB group 18 …”

“…The search of the databases resulted in 212 unique records. Screening of titles and abstracts ( k = 0.96) was followed by detailed full‐text readings of 10 preselected reports ( k = 1), only seven 9,10,18,22–25 of which met the eligibility criteria and were included in this review (Figure 1). We excluded three studies as these evaluated the efficacy of CTB in adults 26–28 …”

“…Two studies had a crossover design 22,25 and three evaluated single‐brushing exercises 9,22,25 . The duration of the experiments was 1 day, 9 2 days, 22,25 1 week, 10,23 2 weeks, 24 and 4 weeks 18 . CTB use followed manufacturer's instructions—to use teeth and tongue to swivel the toothbrush around the oral cavity and brush all tooth surfaces—and MTB was used according to Fones, 10 Modified Bass 9,18 and Modified Stillman 22 techniques.…”

“…Five experiments started with an oral prophylaxis in order for all participants to begin the study with equal dental plaque levels, 18,22–25 but these studies differed in plaque accumulation time, varying from twenty‐four 22,23 to forty‐eight 18,25 hours. Five RCTs disclosed conflicts of interest, 9,10,18,23,25 and only one was funded 23 . Three reported no adverse event after the use of CTB 18,24,25 …”

“…To minimize the clinical heterogeneity in meta‐analysis due to inclusion of different time points, we included the estimates after 1 week of use in the study of Reddy et al, 18 as the other RCTs had also similar follow‐up periods. We anticipate that high heterogeneity was detected and thus random‐effects model with the DerSimonian and Laird variance estimator was used 19 .…”