8-week evaluation of anti-plaque and anti-gingivitis benefits of a unique multi-directional power toothbrush versus a sonic control toothbrush

Procter & Gamble Health Care Research Center, 8700 Mason-Montgomery Road, Mason, OH 45040, USA.
American journal of dentistry (Impact Factor: 0.85). 09/2012; 25 Spec No A(A):27A-32A.
Source: PubMed


To assess the ability of a novel multi-directional power toothbrush to control plaque and gingivitis when compared to a marketed sonic power toothbrush control.
This was a randomized and controlled, examiner-blinded, parallel group, 8-week study at a single center, in adult subjects with mild-to-moderate gingivitis. Pre-treatment gingivitis levels and plaque coverage were evaluated at baseline using the Lobene Modified Gingival Index (MGI), the Gingival Bleeding Index (GBI), and the Rustogi Modified Navy Plaque Index (RMNPI). Qualified subjects were randomly assigned to either a novel multi-directional power toothbrush with a wireless display (Oral-B Professional Deep Sweep + SmartGuide TRICLEAN 5000, also marketed as Oral-B TriZone) or the marketed control sonic toothbrush (Philips Sonicare FlexCare). After a supervised brushing at the clinical site at baseline, subjects brushed unsupervised at home twice daily according to manufacturer instructions with the assigned test brush and standard sodium fluoride dentifrice. After 8 weeks, subjects were recalled to assess toothbrush efficacy via the MGI and GBI gingivitis and RMNPI plaque evaluations.
A total of 128 evaluable subjects completed the study. After 8 weeks of brushing, both test toothbrushes provided statistically significant reductions compared to baseline in mean whole mouth MGI and GBI, and in RMNPI whole mouth and interproximal (approximal) sites (P < 0.001). The novel multi-directional power brush consistently produced significantly superior anti-gingivitis and anti-plaque reductions relative to pre-treatment versus the sonic control brush: the Week 8 adjusted mean relative reductions were 30% and 29% greater for whole mouth MGI and GBI, respectively (P < 0.001); and were 44% and 77% greater for the RMNPI whole mouth and interproximal regions, respectively (P < or = 0.003). Both toothbrushes were well-tolerated.

Download full-text


Available from: Jimmy G Qaqish, May 19, 2015
25 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To determine the effectiveness of a new multi-directional power toothbrush in reducing plaque when compared to a standard manual toothbrush control in a single brushing design. This was a randomized, replicate use, single-brushing, two-treatment, four-period, examiner-blinded crossover clinical trial at a single center. Qualified subjects entered an acclimation phase, after which they were randomly assigned to one of four treatment sequences specifying the order of use of the two test toothbrushes: a novel multi-directional power toothbrush with a 2-D drive (Oral-B Vitality TriZone) and an American Dental Association (ADA) reference soft manual brush. Subjects used each brush twice over the course of the trial. At each of the four period visits, after abstaining from oral hygiene for 24 hours, participants received a baseline (pre-brushing) Turesky Modification of the Quigley-Hein Plaque Index (TMQHPI) examination. They then brushed under supervision with the brush assigned for that period for 2 minutes (multi-directional power brush) or as customary (manual brush control). Subjects were then re-examined for TMQHPI post-brushing to determine the plaque removal efficacy of the respective brushes. A washout phase of 2-5 days separated treatment periods. TMQHPI scores were averaged on a per-subject basis, and analyzed using a mixed model analysis of covariance for a crossover design. All 36 randomized subjects completed the study and were fully evaluable. Both the multi-directional power and manual control brushes produced statistically significant mean whole mouth TMQHPI plaque reductions compared to baseline (P < 0.001). Comparing the brushes, the power brush provided a 7.9% significantly superior mean whole mouth plaque reduction relative to the manual brush control (P= 0.003). Both toothbrushes were well-tolerated.
    American journal of dentistry 09/2012; 25 Spec No A(A):10A-13A. · 0.85 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Numerous laboratory and clinical studies have proven that certain power toothbrush technologies are more effective in removal of dental plaque and reduction of gingivitis than regular manual toothbrushes. Regardless of this evidence, there is still a large group of individuals who prefer the experience of a manual-like toothbrush. Recently a novel multi-directional power brush has been developed as an alternative for those people who favor the traditional size and shape of a manual toothbrush and prefer the manual brushing technique, but would benefit from the greater cleaning efficiency of the power brush. This unique multi-directional power toothbrush with triple-zone cleaning technology has been tested in multiple clinical trials. This special issue introduces the technical features of the brush and presents four clinical investigations conducted with this power toothbrush versus manual and sonic controls. The studies described in this issue demonstrate the superior efficacy of the multi-directional brush in plaque and gingivitis reduction relative to control brushes, even in the hard-to-reach interdental spaces and marginal areas.
    American journal of dentistry 09/2012; 25 Spec No A(A):3A-9A. · 0.85 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objective: A controlled, clinical, double blind study was conducted to assess the efficacy of a sugar-free chewing gum containing calcium hydroxyapatite on dentin hypersensitivity, versus a placebo chewing gum with no active ingredients, after one and two weeks. Methods: One hundred and seven subjects joined the trial and were allocated into the test or the control (placebo) group by a random table. The test chewing gum contained calcium hydroxyapatite and dicalcium phosphate dihydrate; the control chewing gum was identical, but without those ingredients. Participants were required to chew two pieces of their assigned chewing gum three times a day. Dentin hypersensitivity was evaluated following three clinical test indexes (tactile, air blast, cold water) and one subjective index. Results: One hundred subjects completed the study with 50 allocated to each group. The clinical test index reductions after one and two weeks in the test group were, respectively, 36% and 54% for tactile, 35% and 66% for air blast, and 24% and 49% for cold water. The clinical test index reductions after one and two weeks in the control group were, respectively, 16% and 30% for tactile, 11% and 25% for air blast, and 14% and 31% for cold water. These reductions at one and two weeks were significant for the test group (p < 0.01). For the control group they were significant (p < 0.01) only at two weeks. The comparisons between the groups at two weeks showed a significant statistical difference between the test and the control gum for tactile (p < 0.01), for air blast (p < 0.001), for cold water (p < 0.05), and for the subjective index (p < 0.05). Conclusion: In this trial, the group using the chewing gum containing calcium hydroxyapatite had a statistically significant reduction in all clinical test indexes for dentin hypersensitivity after one and two weeks, and a statistically significant reduction compared to the control gum group.
    The Journal of clinical dentistry 08/2014; 25(2):32-6.