Abstract
Data sources Data sources were MEDLINE and the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, with additional hand searches of reference lists from relevant articles and of selected journals dated up to June 2001. Only English-language publications were included.
Study selection Randomised controlled trials were selected that compared the efficacy of dental hygiene with an electric or conventional manual toothbrush in the treatment of gingivitis. Criteria applied to patients enrolled in the trials were that they had to be older than 15 years of age at the beginning of the study, have gingivitis or periodontitis, not be handicapped, and did not have dental implants, extensive prosthetic restoration nor orthodontic treatment.
Data extraction and synthesis Information regarding the studies' quality and characteristics was extracted independently by two reviewers. Kappa scores determined their agreement. Because of the heterogeneity in the identified studies only a qualitative summary of the data was conducted.
Results A group of 21 studies was finally included. Ten studies showed a greater reduction of gingival bleeding or inflammation when power-driven toothbrushes were used by subjects. This effect appears to be related to the capacity to reduce plaque, and is more evident in counter-rotational and oscillating–rotating brushes. No firm evidence was found for higher efficacy of sonic brushes. In short-term studies with prophylaxis after initial examination, no significant differences were found, independent of the type of powered toothbrush tested.
Conclusions The use of powered toothbrushes, especially counter-rotational and oscillating–rotating brushes, can be beneficial in reducing the levels of gingival bleeding or inflammation. Future studies in this field need greater methodological homogeneity to enable quantitative analysis.
Similar content being viewed by others
Log in or create a free account to read this content
Gain free access to this article, as well as selected content from this journal and more on nature.com
or
References
Heanue M, Deacon SA, Deery C et al. Manual versus powered toothbrushing for oral health (Cochrane Review). The Cochrane Library 2003; Issue 1. Oxford: Update Software.
Niederman R, Richards D, Matthews D, Shugars D, Worthington H, Shaw W . International standards for clinical trial conduct and reporting. J Dent Res 2003; 82:415–416.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Address for correspondence: Dr Alberto Sicilia, Section of Periodontology, ClĂ˝'nica Universitaria de OdontologĂ˝'a, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Oviedo, Catedra'tico Jose' Serrano s/n, 33006 Oviedo, Spain. E-mail: asicilia@clinicasicilia.com
Sicilia A, Arregui I, Gallego M, Cabezas B, Cuesta S. A systematic review of powered vs. manual toothbrushes in periodontal cause-related therapy. J Clin Periodontol 2002; 29(Suppl. 3):S39–S54
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Niederman, R. Powered toothbrushes are more effective than manual toothbrushes in reducing gingival bleeding or inflammation. Evid Based Dent 4, 57 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ebd.6400196
Published:
Issue date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.ebd.6400196
