2012PubMedRequires access

Clinical evaluation of the plaque-removing ability of four different toothbrushes in visually impaired children.

Asmita Sharma, Ruchi Arora, Mallikarjun Kenchappa, Deepak P Bhayya, Deepesh Singh

Open publisher page 23 citations

Abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of plaque removal of four different toothbrushes in visually disabled children. Three manual toothbrushes with different bristle designs (Oral-B CrossAction 40-regular, Oral-B ShinyClean 40-soft, Oral-B Advantage 40-soft) were compared with an electric toothbrush with an oscillating rotating head (Colgate Motion). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty visually impaired children in a professional education center participated in the study and were divided into 4 groups of 10 participants each. To obtain a plaque-free condition at baseline, professional toothcleaning was performed on each participant. After instructions on how to use the toothbrushes, each group started the experiment using a differently designed toothbrush. After 1 week of application, the Quigley Hein plaque index (QHI) was used to assess the oral hygiene status of each participant. Student's t-test was chosen for comparing brushes. P < 0.01 was considered as the significance level. Results were presented as mean ± standard deviation. RESULTS: The QHI values obtained with the electric Colgate Motion brush were the lowest (0.088 ± 0.051) and Advantage (0.801 ± 0.132) the highest. Although the QHI values with the manual Oral-B CrossAction (0.439 ± 0.094) were lower than those with the Oral-B shiny clean (0.503 ± 0.098), there was no statistical difference between the two. CONCLUSION: The electric toothbrushes are still the most effective in the visually disabled group. However, because of cheaper cost, easier availability and use, the Oral-B CrossAction toothbrush with criss-cross bristles could be a suitable alternative.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of plaque removal of four different toothbrushes in visually disabled children. Three manual toothbrushes with different bristle designs (Oral-B CrossAction 40-regular, Oral-B ShinyClean 40-soft, Oral-B Advantage 40-soft) were compared with an electric toothbrush with an oscillating rotating head (Colgate Motion). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty visually impaired children in a professional education center participated in the study and were divided into 4 groups of 10 participants each. To obtain a plaque-free condition at baseline, professional toothcleaning was performed on each participant. After instructions on how to use the toothbrushes, each group started the experiment using a differently designed toothbrush. After 1 week of application, the Quigley Hein plaque index (QHI) was used to assess the oral hygiene status of each participant. Student's t-test was chosen for comparing brushes. P < 0.01 was considered as the significance level. Results were presented as mean ± standard deviation. RESULTS: The QHI values obtained with the electric Colgate Motion brush were the lowest (0.088 ± 0.051) and Advantage (0.801 ± 0.132) the highest. Although the QHI values with the manual Oral-B CrossAction (0.439 ± 0.094) were lower than those with the Oral-B shiny clean (0.503 ± 0.098), there was no statistical difference between the two. CONCLUSION: The electric toothbrushes are still the most effective in the visually disabled group. However, because of cheaper cost, easier availability and use, the Oral-B CrossAction toothbrush with criss-cross bristles could be a suitable alternative.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 23 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of plaque removal of four different toothbrushes in visually disabled children. Three manual toothbrushes with different bristle designs (Oral-B CrossAction 40-regular, Oral-B ShinyClean 40-soft, Oral-B Advantage 40-soft) were compared with an electric toothbrush with an oscillating rotating head (Colgate Motion). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Forty visually impaired children in a professional education center participated in the study and were divided into 4 groups of 10 participants each. To obtain a plaque-free condition at baseline, professional toothcleaning was performed on each participant. After instructions on how to use the toothbrushes, each group started the experiment using a differently designed toothbrush. After 1 week of application, the Quigley Hein plaque index (QHI) was used to assess the oral hygiene status of each participant. Student's t-test was chosen for comparing brushes. P < 0.01 was considered as the significance level. Results were presented as mean ± standard deviation. RESULTS: The QHI values obtained with the electric Colgate Motion brush were the lowest (0.088 ± 0.051) and Advantage (0.801 ± 0.132) the highest. Although the QHI values with the manual Oral-B CrossAction (0.439 ± 0.094) were lower than those with the Oral-B shiny clean (0.503 ± 0.098), there was no statistical difference between the two. CONCLUSION: The electric toothbrushes are still the most effective in the visually disabled group. However, because of cheaper cost, easier availability and use, the Oral-B CrossAction toothbrush with criss-cross bristles could be a suitable alternative.

Key concepts: Toothbrush, Medicine, Oral hygiene, Dentistry, Statistical significance, Significant difference, Orthodontics, Dental plaque

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Clinical evaluation of the plaque-removing ability of four different toothbrushes in visually impaired children. — Research Paper | ScholarLens