Manual toothbrushing techniques for plaque removal and the prevention of gingivitis-A systematic review with network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The meaning of the toothbrushing technique for the effectivity of toothbrushing in terms of plaque removal and parameters of gingivitis is unknown. This systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) aimed to synthesize evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: We searched MEDLINE (PubMed), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and the Web of Science for RCTs that compared any self-applied manual toothbrushing technique to any other technique or control and assessed plaque after toothbrushing and gingivitis. Where intervention effects were recorded repeatedly, the last post-intervention assessment was treated as the primary outcome date (POD), and the assessment closest to the intervention as the secondary outcome date (SOD). Age restrictions were not imposed. Participants with fixed orthodontic appliances were excluded. The evidence was evaluated using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analyses (CINeMA) approach, which is based on the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. RESULTS: Thirteen publications, including 15 studies, were identified. Ten studies assessing the Fones, Bass, and Scrub techniques provided data eligible for the NMA. The confidence rating of the evidence varied from very low to high in the case of plaque, and from very low to low in the case of gingivitis. Regarding PODs, Fones probably reduces plaque slightly compared with no training; the evidence is very uncertain that Fones may have little to no effect on gingivitis. Bass may result in little to no difference in plaque; the evidence that Bass may result in a slight increase in gingivitis is very uncertain. The evidence is very uncertain that Scrub may result in little to no difference in plaque at the SOD (no POD-data available) and that it may result in a slight increase in gingivitis. CONCLUSION: There is limited evidence regarding the effects of toothbrushing techniques on plaque after brushing or gingivitis.

It is the habit not the handle that affects tooth brushing - a randomised counterbalanced cross over study with young and healthy adults.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of the toothbrush handle on video-observed toothbrushing behaviour and toothbrushing effectiveness. METHODS: This is a randomized counterbalanced cross-over study. N = 50 university students and employees brushed their teeth at two occasions, one week apart, using either a commercial ergonomically designed manual toothbrush (MT) or Brushalyze V1 (BV1), a manual toothbrush with a thick cylindrical handle without any specific ergonomic features. Brushing behaviour was video-analysed. Plaque was assessed at the second occasion immediately after brushing. Participants also rated their self-perceived oral cleanliness and directly compared the two brushes regarding their handling and compared them to the brushed they used at home. RESULTS: The study participants found the BV1 significantly more cumbersome than the M1 or their brush at home. (p < 0.05). However, correlation analyses revealed a strong consistency of brushing behavior with the two brushes (0.71 < r < 0.91). Means differed only slightly (all d < 0.36). These differences became statistically significant only for the brushing time at inner surfaces (d = 0.31 p = 0.03) and horizontal movements at inner surfaces (d = 0.35, p = 0.02). Plaque levels at the gingival margins did not differ while slightly more plaque persisted at the more coronal aspects of the crown after brushing with BV1 (d = 0.592; p 0.042). DISCUSSION: The results of the study indicate that the brushing handle does not play a major role in brushing behavior or brushing effectiveness.

Patients' awareness regarding the quality of their oral hygiene: development and validation of a new measurement instrument.

BACKGROUND: The present research aimed to develop and validate a standardised survey instrument for the assessment of patients' awareness of the quality of their oral hygiene performance. METHODS: A digital questionnaire was developed that assesses both patients' naïve self-perceptions of oral cleanliness (SPOCn) after tooth brushing and patients' perceptions after being informed how oral cleanliness may be captured in dentistry (SPOCd). Three studies (N = 56 adults, N = 66 adolescents and one of their parents, N = 24 university students) assessed the instrument's feasibility (patient reports), reliability (internal consistency), validity (correlation with other constructs; sensitivity to manipulation of actual tooth brushing), and the correlation with actual oral cleanliness after tooth brushing. RESULTS: All study groups accepted the questionnaire well; average answering times were less than 5 min. Cronbach's α exceeds 0.90; correlational analyses support the discriminant validity regarding oral hygiene related self-efficacy expectations and stages of change; manipulation of oral hygiene behaviour results in the expected changes of SPOC scores. Patients' SPOC correlate only moderately with actual oral cleanliness. The comparison between SPOCd scores and actual oral cleanliness indicate that they considerably overestimate their oral hygiene performance. CONCLUSIONS: The SPOC questionnaire is an easy-to-use, well-accepted, reliable and valid instrument for the assessment of patients' awareness of the quality of their oral hygiene for research and clinical purposes. The results of the questionnaire may help to reveal unrealistic self-perceptions of patients regarding their oral hygiene. It can raise their awareness of the need to improve their skills and/or efforts in this regard. Trial registration The third study was an interventional study and was registered in the appropriate national register ( www.drks.de ; ID: DRKS00018781; date of registration: 12/09/2019).

Good role models? Tooth brushing capabilities of parents: a video observation study.

BACKGROUND: Research in adolescents reveals that they are not capable to remove dental plaque effectively. Inconsistent application of brushing techniques and neglect of certain areas while brushing are very common. As parents play a major role in the oral health education, the present study aimed to examine and describe the tooth brushing performance of the parents of adolescents. METHODS: Parents of adolescents (N = 66) were asked to perform oral hygiene to the best of their capabilities in front of a video camera and dental plaque was recorded before and afterwards. Papillary bleeding was also assessed. RESULTS: The tooth contact time (i.e. net brushing duration) averaged 155 s ± 58 s. Gingival margins showed persistent plaque at 68% ± 14% of the sections assessed. Papillary bleeding was found at 52% ± 18% of the papillae. Parents brushed inner surfaces lesser than the outer surfaces (41 s ± 24 s vs. 73 s ± 33 s) and 29% of the parents completely missed the inner surfaces of at least one sextant. On the outer surfaces parents predominantly applied circular movements (66% ± 25% of brushing time). Vertical brushing prevailed on the inner surfaces (52% ± 30%). However, horizontal scrubbing was also very common (46% ± 31%). CONCLUSIONS: Parents' tooth brushing performance was neither effective in terms of plaque removal nor did they fully comply with tooth brushing recommendations such as considering all inner surfaces when brushing or application of other than horizontal movements to lateral surfaces. Regarding oral hygiene, parents should not only be a good role model in terms of timing, frequency and duration of tooth brushing but should also be able to demonstrate how to brush teeth completely and effectively. The current research indicates that they might lack the latter skill.

Tooth brushing performance in adolescents as compared to the best-practice demonstrated in group prophylaxis programs: an observational study.

BACKGROUND: Research indicates that adolescents may have difficulties to adopt the tooth brushing recommendations delivered in prophylaxis programs. However, it is not clear whether these difficulties are seen amongst the entire age range of adolescence (10-19 years) or only occur at certain developmental stages of the adolescence. The present study analyzes the tooth brushing performance of adolescents and compares it to the best-practice of tooth brushing demonstrated during prophylaxis programs. METHODS: A random sample of N = 66 adolescents, comprising 10-year-olds (n = 42) and 15-year-olds (n = 24), were asked to perform oral hygiene to the best of their abilities in front of a tablet camera. Videos were analyzed for tooth brushing duration, location, and brushing movements, and the difference between the actual and expected behaviour was tested for consistency using repeated measures ANOVAs and Student's t-tests. For the direct comparison across different age groups, already available data from 12- and 18-year-olds were reanalysed. RESULTS: The average brushing time (mean ± SD) of the 10-year-olds and 15-year-olds was 195.8 s (74.6 s) and 196.1 s (75.8 s), respectively. Regardless of age, the adolescents distributed their brushing time unevenly across the inner, outer and occlusal surfaces. The inner surfaces in particular were neglected to a considerable extent, as no age group spent more than 15.8% of the total brushing time on them. Furthermore, all age groups showed a high proportion of horizontal movements on the inner and outer surfaces, regardless of the movements instructed for the respective surfaces. CONCLUSION: Even if adolescents brush to the best of their abilities, they neglect or skip one or many of the tooth surfaces. The reasons for the lack of compliance to tooth brushing instructions are discussed in light of the methods used in prophylaxis programs and the influence of parents.