Display options
Cite
Favrel S, Urbaniak A, Chabowska I, et al. Efficacy of a Hybrid Toothbrush versus Comparative Manual Toothbrush for Plaque Removal - Randomized In-Use Study. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2020;12:241-250doi: 10.2147/CCIDE.S257411.
Favrel, S., Urbaniak, A., Chabowska, I., Sirvent, A., & Gatignol, J. P. (2020). Efficacy of a Hybrid Toothbrush versus Comparative Manual Toothbrush for Plaque Removal - Randomized In-Use Study. Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry, 12241-250. https://doi.org/10.2147/CCIDE.S257411
Favrel, Stéphanie, et al. "Efficacy of a Hybrid Toothbrush versus Comparative Manual Toothbrush for Plaque Removal - Randomized In-Use Study." Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry vol. 12 (2020): 241-250. doi: https://doi.org/10.2147/CCIDE.S257411
Favrel S, Urbaniak A, Chabowska I, Sirvent A, Gatignol JP. Efficacy of a Hybrid Toothbrush versus Comparative Manual Toothbrush for Plaque Removal - Randomized In-Use Study. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2020 Jun 29;12:241-250. doi: 10.2147/CCIDE.S257411. eCollection 2020. PMID: 32636684; PMCID: PMC7334036.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2020 Jun 29;12:241-250. doi: 10.2147/CCIDE.S257411. eCollection 2020.

Efficacy of a Hybrid Toothbrush versus Comparative Manual Toothbrush for Plaque Removal - Randomized In-Use Study.

Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry

Stéphanie Favrel, Anna Urbaniak, Izabela Chabowska, Anne Sirvent, Jean-Philippe Gatignol

Affiliations

  1. Innovation Unit, Clinical Department, Pierre Fabre Consumer Health Care, Castres, France.
  2. Dental Clinic, Gdansk, Poland.
  3. Dermscan Poland, Gdansk, Poland.
  4. Eurofins Dermscan, Villeurbanne, France.
  5. Innovation Unit, Medical Department, Pierre Fabre Consumer Health Care, Castres, France.

PMID: 32636684 PMCID: PMC7334036 DOI: 10.2147/CCIDE.S257411

Abstract

PURPOSE: An innovative hybrid toothbrush was designed to function either in manual sonic mode or combined mode (manual and sonic). The primary objective was to assess the efficacy of a new hybrid powered toothbrush (PTB) used in combined mode versus a comparative manual toothbrush (MTB) for plaque removal, after 14 days of twice-daily use under normal conditions. The secondary objectives were to evaluate the gingival state, to evaluate the tolerance of the hybrid PTB and to evaluate its acceptability.

MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study was a monocentric, block-randomized, dual treatment, parallel group, and examiner-blinded trial with before and after evaluation. It was conducted on two groups of 55 subjects presenting a visible plaque accumulation (score ≥2 as measured by the Turesky Modification of the Quigley-Hein Plaque Index (TMQHPI)). On Day 1/Day 8/Day 15, the same investigator conducted blind clinical examinations on each subject and evaluated TMQHPI and Papillary Bleeding Score (PBS). On Day 1, the subjects received either the hybrid PTB or the comparative MTB and used it twice daily under normal conditions of use.

RESULTS: The hybrid PTB used in its combined mode eliminates dental plaque more efficiently than the comparative MTB, especially in difficult-to-access areas such as posterior and interproximal dental surfaces, while remaining gentle on the gingivae. The PBS was significantly lower with the hybrid toothbrush compared with the reference manual one.

CONCLUSION: The new device confirmed previous findings and should improve oral hygiene following the manufacturer's instructions. Moreover, the specific design of the toothbrush means that it can be used according to the oral environment conditions and personal feeling.

© 2020 Favrel et al.

Keywords: dental plaque; oral health; powered toothbrush; sonic toothbrush

Conflict of interest statement

S. Favrel is an employee of Institut de Recherche Pierre Fabre, CHC Innovation Unit. JP. Gatignol is an employee of Institut de Recherche Pierre Fabre, CHC Innovation Unit. A. Urbaniak received fundin

References

  1. Am J Dent. 2012 Sep;25 Spec No A(A):3A-9A - PubMed
  2. J Periodontol. 1970 Jan;41(1):41-3 - PubMed
  3. J Clin Periodontol. 2002 Jun;29(6):496-500 - PubMed
  4. J Periodontol. 1973 Jul;44(7):396-405 - PubMed
  5. BMC Oral Health. 2018 Nov 6;18(1):185 - PubMed
  6. J Clin Periodontol. 2003 Jul;30(7):624-9 - PubMed
  7. Int J Dent Hyg. 2010 Nov;8(4):280-5 - PubMed
  8. J Dent Hyg. 2009 Summer;83(3):111-6 - PubMed
  9. J Dent Res. 1979 Dec;58(12):2404-12 - PubMed
  10. J Int Med Res. 2017 Oct;45(5):1585-1596 - PubMed
  11. Clin Oral Investig. 2009 Jun;13(2):203-8 - PubMed
  12. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010 Dec 08;(12):CD004971 - PubMed
  13. J Clin Dent. 2007;18(1):25-8 - PubMed
  14. J Clin Dent. 1992;3(Suppl C):C9-12 - PubMed
  15. Am J Dent. 2012 Sep;25 Spec No A(A):14A-20A - PubMed
  16. Int J Dent Hyg. 2016 Feb;14(1):29-41 - PubMed
  17. J Clin Periodontol. 1978 May;5(2):133-51 - PubMed
  18. J Clin Dent. 2017 Mar;28(1 Spec No A):A7-12 - PubMed
  19. J Clin Periodontol. 2009 Jul;36 Suppl 10:20-6 - PubMed
  20. J Clin Periodontol. 1998 Sep;25(9):701-6 - PubMed
  21. Int J Dent Hyg. 2014 Nov;12(4):251-6 - PubMed
  22. J Clin Dent. 2017 Mar;28(1 Spec No A):A1-6 - PubMed
  23. J Clin Dent. 2017 Mar;28(1 Spec No A):A13-28 - PubMed
  24. J Am Dent Assoc. 1962 Jul;65:26-9 - PubMed
  25. J Clin Periodontol. 2005;32 Suppl 6:214-28 - PubMed
  26. J Clin Dent. 2017 Mar;28(1 Spec No A):A29-35 - PubMed
  27. J Clin Dent. 1997;8(1 Spec No):10-4 - PubMed
  28. Clin Oral Investig. 2013 Apr;17(3):687-709 - PubMed
  29. J Dent Hyg. 2017 Apr;91(2):32-39 - PubMed
  30. J Clin Periodontol. 2015 Apr;42 Suppl 16:S77-91 - PubMed
  31. Clin Cosmet Investig Dent. 2013 Feb 27;5:3-9 - PubMed
  32. Scand J Dent Res. 1972;80(1):1-9 - PubMed
  33. Int J Dent Hyg. 2008 Nov;6(4):321-7 - PubMed
  34. Int Dent J. 2000 Jun;50(3):129-39 - PubMed
  35. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Jun 17;(6):CD002281 - PubMed

Publication Types