Clinical oral investigations · 2024
Efficacy of an automatic electric toothbrush with nylon bristles in dental plaque removal: a cross-over randomized controlled trial.
Рандомизированное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Statie Maria Denisa, Lomonaco Irene, Nieri Michele, Giuntini Veronica, Franceschi Debora, Franchi Lorenzo
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this single-use, five-treatment, five-period, cross-over randomized controlled trial (RCT) was to compare the efficacy in dental plaque removal of a new Y-shaped automatic electric toothbrush (Y-brush) compared to a U-shaped automatic electric toothbrush (U-brush), a manual toothbrushing procedure (for 45 and 120 s), and no brushing (negative control).
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eligible participants were volunteer students randomized to the treatments in the five periods of the study. The primary outcome measure was the reduction in full-mouth plaque score (FMPS) after brushing while the secondary outcome variable was a visual analogic scale (VAS) on subjective clean mouth sensation. Mixed models were performed for difference in FMPS and VAS.
RESULTS: After brushing procedures, manual toothbrushing (120 s) showed a statistically significant reduction in FMPS than Y-brush (difference 36.9; 95%CI 29.6 to 44.1, p < 0.0001), U-brush (difference 42.3; 95%CI 35.1 to 49.6, p < 0.0001), manual brushing (45 s) (difference 13.8; 95%CI 6.5 to 21.1, p < 0.0001), and No brushing (difference 46.6; 95%CI 39.3 to 53.9, p < 0.0001). Y-brush was significantly more effective than No brushing (difference 9.8; 95%CI 2.5 to 17.0, p = 0.0030), while there was no significant difference compared to U- brush. Similar results were obtained for the differences in the Clean Mouth VAS.
CONCLUSIONS: Y-brush was significantly more effective than no brushing (negative control) in removing dental plaque. When compared to manual toothbrushing for both 45 and 120 s, however, Y-brush was less effective in dental plaque removal.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Modified design of automatic toothbrushing devices could improve plaque reduction, especially in patients with intellectual disabilities or motor difficulties.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Eligible participants were volunteer students randomized to the treatments in the five periods of the study. The primary outcome measure was the reduction in full-mouth plaque score (FMPS) after brushing while the secondary outcome variable was a visual analogic scale (VAS) on subjective clean mouth sensation. Mixed models were performed for difference in FMPS and VAS.
RESULTS: After brushing procedures, manual toothbrushing (120 s) showed a statistically significant reduction in FMPS than Y-brush (difference 36.9; 95%CI 29.6 to 44.1, p < 0.0001), U-brush (difference 42.3; 95%CI 35.1 to 49.6, p < 0.0001), manual brushing (45 s) (difference 13.8; 95%CI 6.5 to 21.1, p < 0.0001), and No brushing (difference 46.6; 95%CI 39.3 to 53.9, p < 0.0001). Y-brush was significantly more effective than No brushing (difference 9.8; 95%CI 2.5 to 17.0, p = 0.0030), while there was no significant difference compared to U- brush. Similar results were obtained for the differences in the Clean Mouth VAS.
CONCLUSIONS: Y-brush was significantly more effective than no brushing (negative control) in removing dental plaque. When compared to manual toothbrushing for both 45 and 120 s, however, Y-brush was less effective in dental plaque removal.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Modified design of automatic toothbrushing devices could improve plaque reduction, especially in patients with intellectual disabilities or motor difficulties.