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%.

OBJECTIVES: In this study, the effect of the Piper betle L. extract towards S. mutans (with/without sucrose) using scanning electron microscopy (SEM) and on partially purified cell-associated glucosyltransferase activity were determined.

MATERIAL AND METHODS: S. mutans were allowed to adhere to glass beads suspended in 6 different Brain Heart Infusion broths [without sucrose; with sucrose; without sucrose containing the extract (2 mg mL(-1) and 4 mg mL(-1)); with sucrose containing the extract (2 mg mL(-1) and 4 mg mL(-1))]. Positive control was 0.12% chlorhexidine. The glass beads were later processed for SEM viewing. Cell surface area and appearance and, cell population of S. mutans adhering to the glass beads were determined upon viewing using the SEM. The glucosyltransferase activity (with/without extract) was also determined. One- and two-way ANOVA were used accordingly.

RESULTS: It was found that sucrose increased adherence and cell surface area of S. mutans (p<0.001). S. mutans adhering to 100 µm² glass surfaces (with/without sucrose) exhibited reduced cell surface area, fluffy extracellular appearance and cell population in the presence of the Piper betle L. leaves extract. It was also found that the extract inhibited glucosyltransferase activity and its inhibition at 2.5 mg mL(-1) corresponded to that of 0.12% chlorhexidine. At 4 mg mL(-1) of the extract, the glucosyltransferase activity was undetectable and despite that, bacterial cells still demonstrated adherence capacity.

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.