Gingival Margin Stability After Mucogingival Plastic Surgery. The Effect of Manual Versus Powered Toothbrushing: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND

Oscillating-rotating power toothbrushes have been proven to be clinically efficacious. To the best of the authors' knowledge, a clinical evaluation of the safety of these toothbrushes after surgical root coverage procedures has not been published. The aim of this study is to evaluate the gingival margin (GM) stability with the use of an oscillating-rotating toothbrush compared with a manual toothbrush.

METHODS

Sixty healthy individuals with at least one Miller Class I or II gingival recession underwent a surgical root coverage procedure. Soft-bristle manual and powered toothbrushes were given to participants randomly assigned to control and test groups, respectively. Full-mouth plaque score (FMPS), full-mouth bleeding score (FMBS), probing depth (PD), and recession depth (RD) were recorded at baseline and 1, 3, and 6 months after completion of the surgical procedure. Data analyses were performed using linear random-intercept models to take into account within-participant correlations over time. Temporal trend differences across treatments by including treatment-time interaction terms were then tested using a global Wald test.

RESULTS

Use of a powered toothbrush resulted in a significantly greater reduction of recorded periodontal clinical indices compared with a manual device (FMPS, P = 0.05; FMBS, P = 0.005; RD, P = 0.004). No significant differences were noticed between the two experimental groups both for PD (P = 0.03) and clinical attachment level (P = 0.11). Complete root coverage was significantly higher in participants who used the powered toothbrush compared with the manual toothbrush at 6 months (control, 66.67%; test, 96.67%; P = 0.002).

CONCLUSION

Use of an oscillating-rotating powered toothbrush with a soft-bristle head resulted in higher GM stability after root coverage procedures compared with the use of a manual soft-bristled toothbrush.