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.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Powered toothbrushes reduce plaque and gingivitis more than manual toothbrushing in the short and long term. The clinical importance of these findings remains unclear. Observation of methodological guidelines and greater standardisation of design would benefit both future trials and meta-analyses.Cost, reliability and side effects were inconsistently reported. Any reported side effects were localised and only temporary.
METHOD: One hundred and seventy-five subjects aged 65+ were selected from 20 hostels within a 10 km radius of Melbourne's central business district.
RESULTS: Subjects were clinically examined and interviewed using a standard questionnaire. In the course of the clinical examination, coronal caries, root caries, periodontal disease, denture status and related treatment needs were assessed. The mean age of the subjects was 83.7, the majority of whom were female (80 per cent). About 35 per cent of the sample were dentate. The mean number of teeth present among dentate persons was 13.8, the mean coronal caries experience was 24.9 DMFT and mean root caries was 2.3 R-DF. Of the dentate subjects, 46 per cent required at least one restoration for coronal caries and 30 per cent required at least one restoration for root caries. Most dentate subjects had calculus and none had deep pockets, therefore, indications for periodontal treatment did not include complex care. More than 50 per cent of lower full dentures were retained unsatisfactorily and about half of the total number of subjects required prosthetic treatment.
CONCLUSIONS: Although there was a high number of treatment needs, most requirements involved simple technologies that could be delivered by auxiliaries.
METHODS: The Pub med data base was searched for human clinical studies, reviews pertinent to application of green tea polyphenols in periodontal health dating from Sep 1980- Sep 2014.
RESULTS: The retrieved inference from the epidemiological surveys, in vitro studies and overviews of polyphenols, postulate green tea as potential natural antioxidant. Green tea mouthwashes possess limitations, which make them ineffective during the chronic stages of periodontitis. Human studies reveal that the prognosis of periodontal disease is better when the green tea catechins are used via local drug delivery.
CONCLUSION: The maintenance of periodontal health could be enhanced by emphasizing the habit of drinking green tea in periodontitis patients. The future scope of the research demands the analysis of polyphenols at molecular level to have a better understanding of its overwhelming applications.