Materials and Methods: Fifty-nine children were recruited in this study that were allocated randomly into each group with twenty children as follows: group 1: pictorial, group 2: video, and group 3: control. Mean plaque and gingival scores were noted before and after the use of different interventions. Oral hygiene was categorized as "excellent," "good," and "fair." Gingival health was categorized as "healthy," "mild gingivitis," and "moderate gingivitis."

Results: Thirty-four children (57.6%) were from 12-13 years of age bracket, and 25 (42.4%) belonged to 14-16 years of age. Regarding gender, there were 37 (62.7%) males and 22 (37.3%) females. About comparison of mean gingival and plaque scores before and after interventions in each group, a significant difference was found in group 1 (p < 0.001) and group 2 (p < 0.001), as compared to group 3 where the difference in scores was not significant (p > 0.05).

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.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of toothpaste containing aqueous SH extract on plaque-induced gingivitis following orthodontic bond-up and to identify the optimal concentration of SH.

METHODS: A single-centred; triple-blinded randomized controlled trial conducted in 40 patients with FA. Participants were randomly assigned to one of the four groups with toothpaste which has concentration of SH extract of 0%, 3%, 6% or 9%. The statistician, the participants and the researchers involved in data collection were kept blinded from the allocation. Gingival Index (GI) and Bleeding on Probing (BOP) for each group were taken at day 0,7,14 and 30.

RESULTS: 9% of SH-containing toothpaste (SHCT) showed most substantial result as there were significance difference of GI (P = 0.020) from Day 7 to 14 and from Day 0 to 14 (P = 0.020). There was also significance difference of BOP from Day 0 to 14 (P = 0.022) and from Day 0 to 30 (P = 0.027). Significant difference was seen in 3% of SHCT group with the decrease of GI (P = 0.004) from Day 1 to 14. There were no significant difference noted for 0% and 6% SHCT.

MATERIAL AND METHODS: A PRISMA-compliant systematic search of literature was done from the MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Science Direct, PubMed and Google Scholar. Literature that fulfilled eligibility criteria was identified. Data measuring plaque score and bleeding score were extracted. Qualitative and random-effects meta-analyses were conducted.

RESULTS: From 1736 titles and abstracts screened, eight articles were utilized for qualitative analysis, while five were selected for meta-analysis. The pooled effect estimates of SMD and 95% CI were -0.07 [-0.60 to 0.45] with an χ2 statistic of 0.32 (p = 0.0001), I2 = 80% as anti-plaque function and 95% CI were -2.07 [-4.05 to -0.10] with an χ2 statistic of 1.67 (p = 0.02), I2 = 82%.