METHODS: This study is a pragmatic, cluster-randomised, parallel-group, matched pair, controlled trial with blinded outcome assessment. Randomisation is performed using a computer-generated table with a 1:1 allocation comparing the SIMSP and the POHP involving 28 preschools in the Kampar district, Perak, Malaysia. The intervention consists of preschool visits by a group of dental therapists, in-class oral health lessons and daily toothbrushing conducted by class teacher, child home toothbrushing supervised by parents, and infographic oral health messages to parents. The control consists of the existing POHP that involves preschool visits by a group of dental therapists only. The trial lasts for 6 months. Primary outcome variable is the mean plaque score change after 6 months. To determine the feasibility of the SIMSP, a process evaluation will be conducted using the perspectives of dental therapists, teachers, and parents on the appropriateness, effectiveness, facilitators, and barriers to the SIMSP implementation as well as an audit trail to assess the trial intervention.

DISCUSSION: Cluster randomisation may lead to a random effect and cluster selection bias. These factors will be accounted for when analysing the data and interpreting the outcomes. The effectiveness of the SIMSP will be evaluated by comparing the results with those of the POHP.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES: To compare the effectiveness of commercially available 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate mouthrinse and dill seed oil mouthrinse on plaque levels and gingivitis.

MATERIAL AND METHODS: A randomized controlled, double blind parallel arm study was conducted over 90 days on 90 subjects. The subjects were randomly divided into 2 groups and baseline data was collected using Loe and Silness gingival index and Quigley Hein plaque index and oral prophylaxis was performed on all the subjects. The mouthrinses included in the present study were dill seed oil and Hexodent (0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate). Intervention regarding the mouthrinsing was given to the subjects and were followed up for 45 days and 90 days, after this post intervention changes were assessed using the respective indices.

RESULTS: It was observed that there is no significant difference in gingival & plaque scores among two mouthrinses from baseline to 45 days and 90 days. It was observed that there is statistical difference in gingival and plaque scores when compared with baseline to 45 days (p<0.001), baseline to 90 days (p<0.001) and 45 days to 90 days (p<0.001) when intergroup comparisons were done.

OBJECTIVES: To compare manual and powered toothbrushes in everyday use, by people of any age, in relation to the removal of plaque, the health of the gingivae, staining and calculus, dependability, adverse effects and cost.

SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 23 January 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 1), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 23 January 2014), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 23 January 2014) and CINAHL via EBSCO (1980 to 23 January 2014). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register and the WHO Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of at least four weeks of unsupervised powered toothbrushing versus manual toothbrushing for oral health in children and adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Random-effects models were used provided there were four or more studies included in the meta-analysis, otherwise fixed-effect models were used. Data were classed as short term (one to three months) and long term (greater than three months).

MAIN RESULTS: Fifty-six trials met the inclusion criteria; 51 trials involving 4624 participants provided data for meta-analysis. Five trials were at low risk of bias, five at high and 46 at unclear risk of bias.There is moderate quality evidence that powered toothbrushes provide a statistically significant benefit compared with manual toothbrushes with regard to the reduction of plaque in both the short term (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.50 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.70 to -0.31); 40 trials, n = 2871) and long term (SMD -0.47 (95% CI -0.82 to -0.11; 14 trials, n = 978). These results correspond to an 11% reduction in plaque for the Quigley Hein index (Turesky) in the short term and 21% reduction long term. Both meta-analyses showed high levels of heterogeneity (I(2) = 83% and 86% respectively) that was not explained by the different powered toothbrush type subgroups.With regard to gingivitis, there is moderate quality evidence that powered toothbrushes again provide a statistically significant benefit when compared with manual toothbrushes both in the short term (SMD -0.43 (95% CI -0.60 to -0.25); 44 trials, n = 3345) and long term (SMD -0.21 (95% CI -0.31 to -0.12); 16 trials, n = 1645). This corresponds to a 6% and 11% reduction in gingivitis for the Löe and Silness index respectively. Both meta-analyses showed high levels of heterogeneity (I(2) = 82% and 51% respectively) that was not explained by the different powered toothbrush type subgroups.The number of trials for each type of powered toothbrush varied: side to side (10 trials), counter oscillation (five trials), rotation oscillation (27 trials), circular (two trials), ultrasonic (seven trials), ionic (four trials) and unknown (five trials). The greatest body of evidence was for rotation oscillation brushes which demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in plaque and gingivitis at both time points.