Evidence Hub

Long-term comparison of the efficacy of manual versus powered tooth brushing in adolescent orthodontic patients: a single-centre, parallel design randomized clinical trial

A. Johal, Muftah Shagmani, Omar Alfuraih, Ian Arad

European Journal of Orthodontics, 2023

84 participants · 7 citations

Abstract

Abstract Background and objectives To-date, there is no evidence comparing the long-term efficacy of powered and manual toothbrushes in adolescents undergoing fixed appliance treatment. The trial compared the efficacy of manual versus powered toothbrush in controlling plaque and gingival health in patients undergoing fixed treatment in respect of both the short- and long-term. Trial design This was a randomized, parallel, controlled single-blind clinical trial, undertaken in a hospital setting, for which the consolidated standards of reporting trials guidelines were followed. Methods Ninety-two adolescent participants planned to undergo fixed appliance therapy, were randomly assigned to either a manual or powered toothbrush, with allocation concealment. The outcome measures were plaque and gingival indices and bleeding on probing, assessed at baseline (prior to fixed appliance), one-, six- and 12-months. Results The final sample included 84 participants, aged 12-18 (M=14.1, SD=1.93) years, with 40 (47%) were using a manual and 44 (52%) a powered toothbrush. The intervention (powered vs. manual toothbrush) itself appeared insignificant with regards to the gingival index (GI) (95%CI −0.1 – 0.03; P=0.26), plaque index (PI) (95%CI −0.13 – 0.14; P=0.93) and bleeding on probing (BoP) (95%CI −0.03 – 0.03; P=0.98) at any of the time points assessed. However, periodontal health indicators and plaque control significantly worsened (p<0.01), over the 12-month follow-up period,…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a randomized trial, done in people. Its evidence level is 2 of 5 (High · randomized trial). Randomized trials of a reasonable size are the strongest single-study design. Reported size: 84 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free