Search

Summary Objectives. To compare the safety and plaque removal efficacy of two electric toothbrushes, one a rechargeable oscillating/pulsating toothbrush with a small round brush head (Oral-B ProfessionalCare™ 7000; PC 7000), the other a battery-operated toothbrush with a dual moving brush head (Crest® SpinBrush™ Pro; SBP). Methods. The study had a randomised, examiner-blind, two-arm crossover design. All subjects received an oral prophylaxis and used both toothbrushes on alternating days for a two-week practice period. After abstaining from all oral hygiene procedures for 23–25 hours, subjects received an oral tissue examination and those with pre-brushing whole mouth mean plaque scores ≥0.60 measured by the Rustogi et al. Modified Navy Plaque Index were randomly assigned to treatment sequence. Subjects brushed with their assigned toothbrush for 2 minutes using a commercially available dentifrice. Oral tissues were then re-examined and post-brushing plaque scores recorded. After a brief washout period, the above procedures were repeated with the alternate toothbrush. One examiner, blinded to the treatment sequence, performed all clinical measurements. Results. A total of 70 subjects (24 males and 46 females) were enrolled and completed the study. Each toothbrush was found to be safe and significantly reduced plaque levels after a single brushing. The PC 7000 was significantly more effective in plaque removal than the SBP at all tooth areas, reducing whole mouth plaque by 61% versus 58% and plaque from approximal surfaces by 69% versus 65%, respectively. Conclusions. The action of the oscillating/pulsating toothbrush with a small round brush head, Oral-B ProfessionalCare 7000, is more effective in plaque removal than the battery-operated Crest SpinBrush Pro toothbrush with a larger dual moving brush head.

Summary Objectives. To compare the safety and efficacy of an oscillating/pulsating power toothbrush (Oral-B ProfessionalCare™ 7000; PC 7000) fitted with either the standard FlexiSoft (PC 7000/EB17) brush head or the novel Pro Polisher (PC 7000/EB-Prophy) and a high-frequency toothbrush (Philips Sonicare® Elite®; SE), in their relative ability to remove plaque and naturally occurring extrinsic dental stain over a six-week period. Methods. This randomised, examiner-blind, parallel group study involved 90 healthy subjects from a general population. All subjects received a baseline plaque (Turesky et al. modified Quigley-Hein Plaque Index), stain (Lobene Stain Index) and tooth shade (VITAPAN® Shade Guide) [Vita] assessment and an oral tissue examination. After training in the use of their randomly assigned device, subjects were instructed to brush twice daily for 2 min and returned after 3, 4 and 6 weeks of product use for a repeat of each clinical assessment. Results. Reductions from baseline in mean plaque and extrinsic dental stain scores were significant at Weeks 3, 4 and 6 in all three treatment groups. By Week 6, mean reductions from baseline in whole mouth plaque scores were 32%, 27% and 14% in the PC 7000/EB-Prophy, PC 7000/EB17 and SE groups, respectively. For the body of the tooth, mean reductions from baseline at Week 6 in total stain were 89%, 89% and 80%, respectively. Between treatment group comparisons consistently revealed that the PC 7000 toothbrush plus the EB-Prophy or EB17 brush head removed significantly more plaque and extrinsic stain (total stain, stain area and stain intensity) than the SE toothbrush at 3, 4 and 6 weeks. The EB-Prophy group had a greater proportion of subjects showing a 2–3+ change in Vita shade scores at each time point compared to the other two brushes; at Week 6 the proportions were 67% in the PC 7000/EB-Prophy group, 30% in the PC 7000/EB17 group, and 7% in the SE group. The PC 7000/EB17, PC 7000/EB-Prophy and the SE were found to be safe as used in the study. Conclusions. The oscillating/rotating/pulsating PC 7000 (fitted with either the standard EB17 or novel EB-Prophy brush head) is more effective at removal of plaque and naturally occurring extrinsic tooth stain, and the PC 7000 plus EB-Prophy in the improvement of tooth shade, than the high-frequency SE toothbrush.

Background Mechanical methods of oral hygiene can be complemented by the use of chemotherapeutic mouthrinses. The authors sought to quantify the additional benefit provided by an essential oil–, or EO–, containing mouthrinse in reducing plaque and gingivitis in patients who brush and floss regularly. Methods The authors randomly assigned patients with gingivitis to one of three treatment groups: brushing and rinsing with a control mouthrinse, or BC; brushing, flossing and rinsing with a control mouthrinse, or BFC; or brushing, flossing and rinsing with an EO–containing mouthrinse, or BFEO. Patients received a dental prophylaxis at baseline, and the authors followed them for six months. Results Of 246 enrolled subjects enrolled in the study, 237 subjects were evaluable at the study's conclusion. After six months, the subjects using the BFEO regimen had statistically and clinically significant lower mean Modified Gingival Index, or MGI, scores and Plaque Index, or PI, scores than did subjects in the BC group (29.9 percent and 56.3 percent, respectively; P P P Conclusions This study confirms that for patients with gingivitis who brush and floss routinely, the adjunctive use of an EO–containing mouthrinse provides a clinically significant and meaningful additional benefit in reducing plaque and gingivitis. Clinical Implications An EO–containing mouthrinse is an effective adjunct to regular brushing and flossing. Therefore, the BFEO regimen can be beneficial for patients with gingival inflammation.

OBJECTIVE The objective of this study was to compare the reduction of gingivitis by two power interdental devices combined with a manual toothbrush. METHODS Eighty-two subjects completed this randomized, four-week, single-blind, two-group parallel clinical study. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of two groups: Waterpik Water Flosser (WF) plus manual tooth brushing or Sonicare Air Floss (AF) plus manual tooth brushing. Subjects were provided written and verbal instructions for all products at the baseline visit and instructions were reviewed at the two-week (W2) visit. Data were evaluated for whole mouth, lingual, and facial areas for gingivitis and bleeding on probing. Plaque data were evaluated for whole mouth, lingual, facial, approximal, and marginal areas of the tooth. Gingivitis, bleeding on probing, and plaque were scored at baseline (BSL), two weeks, and four weeks (W4). RESULTS Both groups showed significant reductions in gingivitis, bleeding on probing, and plaque from baseline for all regions and time points measured (p < 0.001). The WF group was significantly more effective than the AF group at reducing plaque and gingivitis at W2 and W4 for all areas measured (p

Background The efficacy of an essential oil–containing antiseptic mouthrinse (Listerine Antiseptic, Pfizer) and an antiplaque/antigingivitis dentifrice (Colgate Total, Colgate-Palmolive) has been demonstrated in numerous double-blind clinical studies. This study was conducted to determine their comparative efficacy. Methods Three hundred sixteen subjects with mild-to-moderate gingival inflammation and plaque received a dental prophylaxis and began their randomly assigned brushing and rinsing regimen in an unsupervised setting. Subjects brushed for one minute and rinsed with 20 milliliters for 30 seconds twice daily for six months. The three groups were L (control toothpaste/Listerine rinse), T (Colgate Total toothpaste/control rinse) and P (control toothpaste/control rinse). Results Subjects in the L and T groups demonstrated statistically significantly lower ( P P Conclusion Although the Listerine Antiseptic and Colgate Total antiplaque/antigingivitis products produced similar, clinically significant reductions in gingivitis (as measured by MGI and BI), Listerine, when used in conjunction with a fluoride dentifrice and usual oral hygiene, provided a greater benefit in reducing plaque. Clinical Implications When considering an antiplaque/antigingivitis product to recommend to patients, clinicians should consider Listerine Antiseptic, in conjunction with usual oral hygiene, if more rigorous plaque control is desired.

Two antimicrobial agents, a fixed combination of essential oils (EOs) and 0.07% cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) are found in commercially available mouthrinses, Listerine® Antiseptic and Crest® Pro HealthTM, respectively. Both mouthrinses have been shown to control dental plaque and gingivitis in short and longer term studies. The aim of this study was to determine the comparative effectiveness of these two mouthrinses using a 2-week experimental gingivitis model. Qualified subjects were randomly assigned to one of three mouthrinse groups: a fixed combination of EOs, 0.07% CPC, or negative control (C) rinse. Following baseline clinical assessments and a dental prophylaxis, subjects began a two-week period in which they rinsed twice daily with their assigned rinse and abstained from any mechanical oral hygiene procedures or other oral care products. Subjects were reassessed at the end of the two-week period. One hundred and forty-seven subjects were randomized and 142 completed this study. After two weeks use, the EOs rinse was superior (p < 0.011) to the CPC rinse in inhibiting the development of gingivitis, plaque, and bleeding, with 9.4% and 6.6% reductions compared to CPC for gingivitis and plaque, respectively. Both rinses were superior to the negative control rinse (p < 0.001). This study demonstrates that the essential oil-containing mouthrinse has superior antiplaque/antigingivitis effectiveness compared to the 0.07% CPC-containing mouthrinse without mechanical oral hygiene influence.

Effective self-care is difficult for people with orthodontic appliances because of the inherent design of brackets and archwires. It is not uncommon to have increases in plaque and gingivitis after placement of fixed appliances. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of using a dental water jet (DWJ) with a specialized tip (orthodontic) on plaque and bleeding in adolescent orthodontic patients with fixed appliances.One hundred six subjects were enrolled in this single blind, parallel clinical study. They were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatment groups: group 1, once daily irrigation with a DWJ and orthodontic jet tip plus a manual toothbrush; group 2, once daily flossing (FL) plus a manual toothbrush; group 3, manual toothbrush (MT) only. Plaque index (PI) and bleeding index (BI) scores were recorded at baseline, and at 2 and 4 weeks.All groups showed statistically significant reductions in PI (whole mouth and interproximal) at 2 and 4 weeks (P.001). In group 1, the DWJ was statistically more effective at reducing whole-mouth and interproximal plaque than the methods in the other groups (P.001) at both 2 and 4 weeks, whereas the FL protocol in group 2 was significantly more effective than the MT protocol in group 3 at 4 weeks (P =.025) for whole-mouth plaque and at 2 and 4 weeks (P = .011 and P = .028, respectively) for interproximal plaque. All groups showed statistically significant reductions in BI (whole mouth and interproximal) at 2 and 4 weeks (P.001). The DWJ in group 1 was statistically more effective at reducing whole-mouth bleeding than the protocols of the other groups at 2 and 4 weeks (P.001), and the FL was statistically more effective than the MT at both times (P.001). Both the DWJ and the FL were significantly more effective than the MT at 2 weeks (P.001 and P.016, respectively) for interproximal bleeding, but there were no differences between the groups at 4 weeks.A DWJ with a specialized orthodontic jet tip is effective for adolescents in fixed orthodontic appliances; it demonstrated beneficial results for the reduction of plaque and bleeding.

AIM To compare the safety and plaque removal efficacy of an oscillating/ pulsating toothbrush (Professional Care Series, Oral-B Laboratories; PCS) and a high frequency toothbrush (Sonicare Elite, Philips Oral Healthcare; SE). METHODS The study had a randomised, examiner-blind, crossover design. Sixty-one subjects aged 19-64 years were enrolled. After 23-25 hours of no oral hygiene, subjects received an oral tissue examination and those with pre-brushing whole mouth mean plaque scores > or = 0.60 measured by the Rustogi modified Navy Plaque Index were randomly assigned to treatment sequence. Subjects brushed with their assigned toothbrush for 2 minutes using a commercially available dentifrice. Oral tissues were then re-examined and post-brushing plaque scores recorded. After a brief washout period, the above procedures were repeated with the alternate toothbrush. One examiner blinded to the treatment sequence performed all clinical measurements. RESULTS All 61 subjects completed the study. Both toothbrushes significantly reduced plaque levels after a single brushing (t-test, p < 0.0001). However, the PCS was significantly more effective than the SE in whole mouth plaque removal and in reducing plaque from marginal, buccal, lingual and approximal surfaces (ANOVA, p < 0.0001). Whole mouth plaque was reduced by 88% versus 61% and approximal plaque by 97% versus 73% for the PCS and SE toothbrushes, respectively. There was no evidence of hard or soft tissue trauma after a single-use of either toothbrush. CONCLUSION Based on the findings of this single-use clinical evaluation, the action of the oscillating/ pulsating power toothbrush is more effective at plaque removal than a high frequency power toothbrush.