Laboratory evaluations of two battery-powered toothbrushes and a manual toothbrush for efficacy and safety.

Two laboratory testing procedures, predictive of clinical efficacy and safety, have been used to evaluate two battery-powered toothbrushes (a new prototype, Crest SpinBrush Pro and a commercially available product, Crest SpinBrush) and a standard manual toothbrush (Oral-B Indicator). Interproximal access efficacy (IAE) and depth of deposit removal (DDR) have been evaluated in laboratory methods using pressure-sensitive paper placed around simulated anterior and posterior teeth at a brushing pressure of 250 g with horizontal or vertical brushing motions. Twenty-four tests on each toothbrush design were conducted, and results were statistically analyzed using ANOVA and the post hoc Tukey test. Both of the battery-powered toothbrushes had a significantly (p < 0.001) higher mean overall IAE value compared to the Oral-B Indicator product. The Crest SpinBrush Pro was significantly statistically higher (p < 0.05) compared to the Crest SpinBrush for mean overall IAE (access to interproximal spaces). On overall DDR, both of the powered toothbrushes had a significantly (p < 0.05-0.001) lower mean overall value compared to the Oral-B Indicator toothbrush (higher mean indicates higher irritation potential). Based on these results, both the new prototype Crest SpinBrush Pro and the commercially available Crest SpinBrush are predicted to be more effective clinically for plaque removal, and at least as safe on hard and soft intraoral tissues as the standard manual toothbrush (Oral-B Indicator) tested. In addition, the results support that the new prototype Crest SpinBrush Pro is more effective than the Crest SpinBrush with respect to IAE and predicted plaque removal.