Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Meta-Analysis
. 2020 Feb;18(1):17-26.
doi: 10.1111/idh.12401. Epub 2019 Jul 23.

How effective is a powered toothbrush as compared to a manual toothbrush? A systematic review and meta-analysis of single brushing exercises

Therese A Elkerbout  1 , Dagmar E Slot  1 , N A Martijn Rosema  1 , G A Van der Weijden  1
Affiliations
Meta-Analysis

How effective is a powered toothbrush as compared to a manual toothbrush? A systematic review and meta-analysis of single brushing exercises

Therese A Elkerbout et al. Int J Dent Hyg. 2020 Feb.

Abstract

Objectives: In adult participants, what is, following a single brushing exercise, the efficacy of a powered toothbrush (PTB) as compared to a manual toothbrush (MTB) on plaque removal?

Methods: MEDLINE-PubMed and Cochrane-CENTRAL were searched from inception to February 2019. The inclusion criteria were (randomized) controlled clinical trials conducted in human subjects ≥18 years of age, in good general health and without periodontitis, orthodontic treatment, implants and/or removable prosthesis. Papers evaluating a PTB compared with a MTB in a single brushing exercise were included. When plaque scores were assessed according to the Quigley-Hein plaque index (Q&HPI) or the Rustogi modified Navy plaque index (RMNPI). From the eligible studies, data were extracted. A meta-analysis and subanalysis for brands and mode of action being oscillating-rotating (OR) and side-to-side (SS) were performed when feasible.

Results: Independent screening of 3450 unique papers resulted in 17 eligible publications presenting 36 comparisons. In total, 28 comparisons assessed toothbrushing efficacy according to the Q&HPI and eight comparisons used the RMNPI. Results showed a significant effect in favour of the PTB. The difference of Means (DiffM) was -0.14 (P < 0.001; 95%CI [-0.19; -0.09]) for the Q&HPI and -0.10 (P < 0.001; 95%CI [-0.14; -0.06]) for the RMNPI, respectively. The subanalysis on the OR mode of action showed a DiffM -0.16 (P < 0.001; 95%CI [-0.22, -0.10]) for the Q&HPI. For the SS mode of action using RMNPI, the DiffM showed -0.10 (P < 0.001; 95%CI [-0.15; -0.05]). The subanalysis for brands showed for the P&G OR PTB using the Q&HPI a DiffM of -0.15 (P < 0.001; 95%CI [-0.22; -0.08]) and the Colgate SS for RMNPI showed a DiffM of -0.15 (P < 0.001; 95%CI [-0.18; -0.12]).

Conclusion: There is moderate certainty that the PTB was more effective than the MTB with respect to plaque removal following a single brushing exercise independent of the plaque index scale that was used.

Keywords: dental plaque; manual toothbrush; powered toothbrush; single brushing exercise; systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Search and selection results
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Löe H. (2000) Oral hygiene in the prevention of caries and periodontal disease. Int Dent J. 2000;50(3):129‐139. - PubMed
    1. Löe H, Theilade E, Jensen SB. Experimental gingivitis in man. J Periodontol. 1965;36:177‐187. - PubMed
    1. Van der Weijden GA, Slot DE. Oral hygiene in the prevention of periodontal diseases: the evidence. Periodontol 2000. 2011;55:104‐123. - PubMed
    1. Deacon SA, Glenny AM, Deery C, et al. Different powered toothbrushes for plaque control and gingival health. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2010;(12):CD004971. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ash MM. A review of the problems and results of studies on manual and power toothbrushes. J Periodontol. 1964;35:202‐213.