Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Toothbrushing”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 55 records · Page 3Linked to original sources
PubMed1994

A comparative study between the double-headed toothbrush and the single headed toothbrush in plaque removal efficiency.

A three-way blind cross-over study was done to compare the plaque removing effects of a double-headed toothbrush with a popular single-headed toothbrush in 30 patients. Both brushes were used with the modified Bass technique for one week each. The results of this study indicated that the double-headed toothbrush is more effective in plaque removal especially when dentifrices were used.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1996

Toothbrushing duration and plaque removing efficacy of electric toothbrushes.

PURPOSE: To test the plaque removing efficacy of three different toothbrushes in relation to duration of toothbrushing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The brushes studied were the Sonicare, the Braun Plak Remover (D7), and a modified Plak Control with increased speed (D9). Part 1 of the study was divided into four experiments which differed only in respect to the brushing time. The available times were 15, 30, 45, 60 seconds per quadrant. After 48 hours plaque accumulation, all subjects (n = 22) were brushed professionally using at random a brush in one quadrant (without toothpaste). Part 2 was a 3-way cross-over design in which the same three brushes were tested. In total 49, subjects participated. They were given a brief instruction on the use of each toothbrush and were allowed to get familiarized with each brush during a 2-week period. After 48 hours plaque accumulation, they brushed in a random order the four quadrants, each with a different brushing time (15, 30, 45, 60 seconds). The amount of dental plaque was evaluated pre- and post-brushing by means of the Silness & Löe plaque index at six sites around each tooth investigated. RESULTS: The results of Part 1 and 2 showed an increase in efficacy for all brushes varying from 1 minute per quadrant to 4 minutes per quadrant. In Part 1, the D7 was more effective than the Sonicare brush at 15, 20, 45 seconds whereas the D9 was more effective at all four brushing times. In Part 2, both the D7 and D9 were more effective than the Sonicare at the 2-minute brushing time. These differences were mainly caused by a greater plaque removal from the approximal areas.

Cross-Over Studies↗
PubMed1997

Clinical and laboratory evaluation of powered electric toothbrushes: in vivo determination of average force for use of manual and powered toothbrushes.

Mechanical oral hygiene instruments are intended to aid in the removal of stain and dental plaque from tooth surfaces. Certain home hygiene procedures, however, can lead to soft and hard tissue trauma. Power assisted brushing instruments are gaining in popularity, yet there is limited information on the interaction of these home care instruments with commercial dentifrices, and the resultant impact on oral tissues. In this study, the average forces applied during in vivo toothbrushing were determined for three powered brushing instruments (Rota-dent, Interplak and Braun Oral-B Plaque Remover) and a manual toothbrush (Oral-B P40). The Rota-dent instrument was found to be used with the lowest brushing pressure followed, in order, by the Braun Oral-B Plaque Remover. Interplak and the manual toothbrush. The average amount of dentifrice applied to the three powered brush heads was directly related to the size of the head, with Rota-dent typically receiving the least and Interplak the most applied dentifrice.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1994

Subgingival and interproximal plaque removal using a counter-rotational electric toothbrush and a manual toothbrush.

The purpose of this study was to compare the subgingival and interproximal plaque removal of a manual toothbrush to that of an oscillating counter-rotational electric toothbrush. Ninety teeth were divided into control, manual, and electric groups and test teeth received a total of 20 seconds of brushing. The teeth were then anesthetized, extracted, stained, dried, and examined with a computer-assisted video analysis system. The control group had 13.88% plaque-free interproximal surfaces, compared to 30.57% for the manual group and 53.23% for the electric group. The mean subgingival plaque-free measurement was 0.05 mm for the control group, 0.64 mm for the manual group, and 1.36 mm for the electric group. The differences between the means were statistically significant for both measurements.

Analysis of Variance↗
PubMed1996

Preventing toothbrush abrasion and the efficacy of the Alert toothbrush: a review and patient study.

The literature recognizes two etiologies for periodontal attachment loss. On a statistical basis, bacterial periodontal disease causes attachment loss interproximally, while trauma, or self-inflicted periodontal disease, causes attachment loss on the buccal and lingual tooth surfaces. One study shows that the prevalence of attachment loss caused by abrasion is only slightly less than the attachment loss caused by bacterial periodontal disease. While the clinical community focuses on the prevention and treatment of bacterial disease, a large percentage of periodontal attachment loss (caused by abrasion) is not diagnosed and remains untreated. Preventive measures have been unsuccessful. The predominant etiology for buccal and lingual attachment loss is excessive brushing pressure. The Alert Toothbrush is the first brush that allows users to monitor and standardize their brushing pressure to reduce the friction, wear, and trauma to their teeth and gums. This is the report of the initial study of patient reaction to and evaluation of this new manual toothbrush.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1997

Clinical and laboratory evaluation of powered electric toothbrushes: laboratory determination of relative abrasion of three powered toothbrushes.

Previously established data on average forces applied to various brushing instruments during in vivo toothbrushing were incorporated into a laboratory abrasion model. The apparatus included a specially constructed and standardized brushing machine and utilized an acrylic resin substrate. Three powered brushing instruments (Rota-dent, Interplak and Braun Oral-B Plaque Remover) and a manual toothbrush (Oral-B P40), were compared in this model. The system demonstrated excellent precision and could distinguish between brushing instruments with as little as 10% difference in abrasivity. It was found that brushing abrasivity increased in the order of Rota-dent < Braun < Interplak.

Acrylic Resins↗
PubMed1996

A study of toothbrush contamination at different time intervals and comparative effectiveness of various disinfecting solutions in reducing toothbrush contamination.

Toothbrush contamination during the procedure of brushing was assessed at different time intervals of usage. A peak value of 100% contamination was found at 1 month interval. Hence, a method suggesting disinfection of the toothbrush was employed by comparing the effectiveness of various disinfecting solutions available in the market so that, the brush does not become a source of potential pathogens.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1990

[Electric toothbrushes--manual toothbrushes, a comparison].

This study covering a period of almost 16 weeks shows that manual tooth cleaning must be regarded as somewhat superior to electric tooth-brushes in terms of the plaque index. Concerning the more important sulcus bleeding index, the electric tooth-brush leads to better results. This, however, only after at least two weeks of "familiarisation" of the patients with the electric tooth-brush, and after a minimum follow-up time of three to five weeks! This is why another quite important conclusion should be drawn from this study: studies of this type should not be planned for too short a period, i.e. for at least 12 weeks.

Humans↗