Clinical oral investigations · 2026
Evaluation of a novel dual-headed toothbrush design for periodontal health: split- mouth randomized blind clinical trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
ElHaddad Sally A, Zahid Mohammed N, Dimashkieh Reda M, Demachkia Amir M, Al Khalifa Fatimah Ibrahim, Ayami Ruaa Abdulaziz, ElShall Ahmad Mohamed, Kahil Nada, Algohar Ahmed, Dimashkieh Mohiddin R
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Optimal oral health largely depends on the successful removal of plaque through effective brushing, but success typically relies on user technique, time, and adherence. The aim was to compare the effectiveness of a newly introduced dual-headed toothbrush with a conventional single-headed toothbrush in control of plaque and gingival health using a split-mouth design.
METHODS: In the study, 37 dental professionals used two types of toothbrushes: a dual-headed toothbrush on one side of the mouth (Test side) and a conventional single-headed toothbrush on the other side (Control side). The study compared plaque removal, gingival status, and brushing time, assessing clinical outcomes using plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), and modified sulcus bleeding index (mSBI) at baseline, 2 weeks, and 4 weeks. At the end, participants completed a Likert scale questionnaire.
RESULTS: Both types of toothbrushes were effective in enhancing oral hygiene over time; however, dual-headed toothbrush group showed significant short-term reductions in plaque accumulation, gingival inflammation, and bleeding, particularly at the 2-week interval. A significant majority of participants (89.2%) rated dual-headed brush as "very easy" to use. Using a dual-headed toothbrush significantly reduces the brushing time (0.54 ± 0.17 vs. 0.99 ± 0.05 min for a conventional single-headed toothbrush), suggesting enhanced time efficiency.
CONCLUSION: A dual-headed toothbrush would be more effective, faster, and easier to use than a single-headed brush. It would be a convenient alternative, especially for individuals with time constraints.
METHODS: In the study, 37 dental professionals used two types of toothbrushes: a dual-headed toothbrush on one side of the mouth (Test side) and a conventional single-headed toothbrush on the other side (Control side). The study compared plaque removal, gingival status, and brushing time, assessing clinical outcomes using plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), and modified sulcus bleeding index (mSBI) at baseline, 2 weeks, and 4 weeks. At the end, participants completed a Likert scale questionnaire.
RESULTS: Both types of toothbrushes were effective in enhancing oral hygiene over time; however, dual-headed toothbrush group showed significant short-term reductions in plaque accumulation, gingival inflammation, and bleeding, particularly at the 2-week interval. A significant majority of participants (89.2%) rated dual-headed brush as "very easy" to use. Using a dual-headed toothbrush significantly reduces the brushing time (0.54 ± 0.17 vs. 0.99 ± 0.05 min for a conventional single-headed toothbrush), suggesting enhanced time efficiency.
CONCLUSION: A dual-headed toothbrush would be more effective, faster, and easier to use than a single-headed brush. It would be a convenient alternative, especially for individuals with time constraints.