Comparison of two over-the-counter tooth whitening products using a novel system.

Tooth whitening is one of the most widely accepted esthetic procedures in dentistry. Various treatment options include in-office and prescribed at-home bleaching procedures, over-the-counter bleaching kits, and whitening dentifrices. This study evaluated and compared a 6% hydrogen peroxide tooth bleaching gel delivered on polyethylene film (HP) with an 18% carbamide peroxide brush-applied liquid gel (CP). A total of 59 subjects completed this 2-week, examiner blind, randomized, parallel group study. Both treatments were applied twice daily for 2 weeks according to the manufacturer's instructions. Evaluations for oral safety and Vita tooth shade were conducted by a dental examiner at baseline and 2 weeks after product use. In addition, the ShadeVision System was used to determine changes in Vita shade and L*a*b* values. Based on both the examiner and ShadeVision System assessments, both treatments significantly improved tooth shade. Improvements in Vita tooth shade based on the adjusted mean for HP were 2.64 (P < 0.001) and 2.33 (P < 0.001) for the examiner and ShadeVision System assessments, respectively, compared with improvements of 1.04 (P = .004) and 0.42 (P = 0.029) for CP users, respectively. The difference between treatments was found to be significant for both the examiner (P = .005) and ShadeVision (P = .001) assessments. Findings from the L*a*b* data derived from the ShadeVision System were in agreement with Vita assessments, with significant differences for changes in L*, a*, and b* in favor of HP users (P = .001). In this study, the ShadeVision method of color analysis was relatively easy to use and demonstrated significant differences between 2 OTC whitening products using both Vitapan and L*a*b* means of assessment.

A 30-day clinical comparison of a novel interdental cleaning device and dental floss in the reduction of plaque and gingivitis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and efficacy of a novel battery-operated interdental cleaning device (Oral-B Hummingbird) [ID], fitted with either a flossette or pick attachment, versus hand-held dental floss in the reduction of plaque and gingivitis when combined with manual tooth brushing over a 30-day period. METHODOLOGY: This randomized, examiner blind, parallel group study assessed three treatment groups: ID/flossette (ID/F), ID/pick (ID/P), and unwaxed manual dental floss. All groups used the same soft manual toothbrush and toothpaste. The 84 subjects were stratified to treatment groups based on initial whole mouth mean plaque scores, gingivitis scores, and gender. Subjects were instructed to brush twice daily and use their assigned interdental method once daily in the evening before brushing. Gingivitis, gingival bleeding, and plaque were evaluated at baseline and Day 30. RESULTS: A total of 78 subjects completed all aspects of the study and were included in the analyses. There was no significant difference between treatment groups in baseline plaque, gingivitis, and bleeding scores. After 30 days, statistically significant reductions from baseline gingivitis and bleeding scores were found for all groups (p < 0.0001), but there were no significant statistical differences among groups. Whole mouth and approximal plaque scores were significantly reduced from baseline in the manual floss and ID/F groups after 30 days of product use, with no significant difference between groups. Plaque reduction for both the manual floss and ID/F groups was significantly greater than the ID/P group. All interdental cleaning methods were safe as used in the study, with no evidence of oral hard or soft tissue trauma. CONCLUSION: The Oral-B Hummingbird was safe and effective in reducing approximal plaque and gingival inflammation, and provides a useful alternative device for interdental cleaning.

A clinical study of plaque removal with an advanced rechargeable power toothbrush and a battery-operated device.

PURPOSE: To compare the safety and efficacy of two recently introduced modern power toothbrushes with different characteristics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a single-blind, randomized, crossover study which compared the ability of two power toothbrushes to remove plaque during a 2-minute brushing period. The two brushes were the Braun Oral-B 3D Excel (D17), a rechargeable toothbrush with an oscillating/rotating/pulsating action and the Colgate Actibrush, a battery-operated device with an oscillating/rotating action. Seventy-four healthy subjects from a general population who met the inclusion/exclusion criteria used the two brushes on alternate days for a period of familiarization before returning to the test facility. At this visit, subjects with a whole mouth mean Proximal/Marginal Plaque Index of > or = 2.20 after 23-25 hours of no oral hygiene were randomly assigned to one of two treatment sequences, D17/Actibrush and Actibrush/D17, balanced for age and gender. Subjects brushed with their assigned toothbrush after which post-brushing plaque scores were recorded. After a 2-week washout phase subjects returned to the test facility and brushed with the alternate toothbrush as described. Data from the two visits were pooled, after which plaque removal efficacies were compared. Change from prebrushing treatment means were compared using ANOVA with models appropriate for the crossover design. RESULTS: Both toothbrushes were found to be safe and both significantly reduced plaque levels (P < or = 0.0001), but the D17 was significantly more effective than the Actibrush for the whole mouth and for approximal sites. Plaque reductions for the D17 were 46.5%, 55.2% and 42.9% for whole mouth, marginal and approximal sites, respectively while reductions for the Actibrush for the whole mouth, marginal, and approximal sites, were 41.5%, 52.5% and 36.8% respectively. It is concluded that the Braun Oral-B D17 may offer advantages in terms of plaque removal over the battery-powered Actibrush, particularly at hard to reach approximal sites.