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.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04339647 . Registered on 5 April 2020 - Retrospectively registered.
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.
CONCLUSION: It was concluded that dill seed oil and Hexodent (0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate) mouthrinse have similar antiplaque and antigingival effectiveness.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-over study was conducted in 2 phases of 6 weeks duration each with an intervening 2-week washout. Twenty-five participants meeting inclusion criteria were randomly allocated into groups A (13) and B (12). In phase 1: group A was assigned T1 and group B was assigned T2. Toothbrushing was advised twice daily for 2 minutes by modified bass technique after meals. At baseline, 3 weeks and 6 weeks the wear index (WI), plaque index (PI) and gingival index (GI) were recorded. Following washout in phase 2 group A was assigned T2 and group B was assigned T1 and the same study protocol was followed.
RESULTS: Intra-group comparison between baseline, 3 and 6 weeks by the paired t-test resulted in significant reduction in PI, GI and increase in WI (p <0.05) for T1 and T2. Inter-group comparison using the unpaired t-test resulted in WI for T1 being significantly higher (p <0.05) at 3 weeks and lower at 6 weeks (p <0.05) compared to T2. PI for T1 was significantly higher at 3 weeks (p <0.05) and lower at 6 weeks (p <0.05) compared to T2. No significant difference in GI scores between T1 and T2 at 3 and 6 weeks was observed (p >0.05).
CONCLUSION: Charcoal infused bristles demonstrated less wear and more plaque removal compared to nylon bristles.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Charcoal infused bristles demonstrate less wear compared to nylon bristles.
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.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 47 patients with 88 IPS e.max Press single crowns were examined at the Faculty of Dentistry, University of Malaya, using modified United States Public Health Service evaluation criteria (USPHS). These 88 crowned teeth included 19 vital and 69 nonvital teeth that were restored with different post and core materials. The periodontal status was compared using the plaque index (PI), gingival recession (GR), modified papillary bleeding index (MPBI) and probing pocket depth (PPD) between the crowned teeth and contralateral control (sound) teeth.
RESULTS: About 96.6% of the crowns exhibited satisfactory clinical performance. The mean survival rate at three years was 97.7%, and 100% at two years with a low incidence of fractures. There were no staitistically significant differences in the mean gingival recession (p = 0.182) and mean plaque scores (p = 0.102) between crowned and control teeth. The crowned teeth had higher mean MPBI (p = 0.000) and PPD (p = 0.051) compared to the contralateral sound teeth. Periodontal response in relation to subgingival crown margins, was statistically significantly lower regarding pocket depths (p = 0.01) and bleeding on probing (p = 0.00).
CONCLUSION: IPS e.max Press crowns exhibited satisfactory clinical performance with high survival rate. No dentinal sensitivity was recorded. Plaque retention and gingival recession were similar to contralateral control teeth. Poor periodontal health was related to the subgingival crown margins.