The efficacy of an oscillating-rotating power toothbrush compared to a high-frequency sonic power toothbrush on parameters of dental plaque and gingival inflammation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

AIM: To establish the efficacy of oscillating-rotating power toothbrush (OR-PTB) compared to high-frequency sonic power toothbrush (HFS-PTB) on improving parameters of plaque and gingival inflammation. Safety and participants' preference were secondary interests. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MEDLINE-PubMed and Cochrane-CENTRAL databases were searched, up to April 2021. Inclusion criteria were (randomized)controlled clinical trials that evaluated healthy humans brushing with an OR-PTB compared to a HFS-PTB. Evaluation for a minimum of 4 weeks, of one or more of the following parameters: plaque index scores (PI), bleeding scores (BS), number of bleeding sites (NoB) and gingival index scores (GI). RESULTS: Thirty two publications involving 38 comparisons were included after the independent screening. The descriptive analysis showed that in 54% of the comparisons, a significant difference in favour of the OR-PTB was found for PI, BS and GI scores. The Quigley and Hein index showed a significant difference of means (DiffM) between the end scores (DiffM 0.13, 95% CI [0.05;0.21] p < 0.001), as well as for the Rustogi-modified Navy index (DiffM 0.01, 95% CI [0.01;0.03] p = 0.002). This is in line with the meta-analysis for BS (DiffM 0.09, 95% CI [0.03;0.14] p = 0.003), for which the results were in favour of the OR-PTB and considered potentially clinically relevant. NoB showed a significant difference in favour of the OR-PTB for the end scores (DiffM 3.61, 95% CI [2.63;4.58] p < 0.00001). No difference in safety was indicated, 78% of participants preferred the OR-PTB. CONCLUSION: For patients to maintain good plaque control and improve gingival health, there is a small but significant difference based on longer-term studies between OR-PTB and HFS-PTB. This difference is potentially clinically relevant.

The efficacy of a rubber bristles interdental cleaner on parameters of oral soft tissue health-a systematic review.

AIM: This study aimed to establish the efficacy of a rubber bristles interdental cleaner (RBIC) as an adjunct to toothbrushing (TB) compared to that of the adjuvant use of other interdental cleaning devices and TB alone on plaque and gingivitis parameters. Additionally, the safety aspects and panellists' appreciation were evaluated. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Databases were searched for randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating plaque (PI), bleeding (BS), and gingival index (GI) scores, safety assessments, and participants' appreciation. Extracted data were summarized in a descriptive and, if possible, a meta-analysis. RESULTS: The search retrieved 142 unique papers; six studies with 10 comparisons were included in a descriptive analysis. Five RCTs compared RBICs with interdental brushes (IDBs), four with dental floss (DF) and one with manual TB only. No comparisons to wood sticks were retrieved. Using an RBIC resulted in no difference in plaque scores compared to DF and IDBs. For overall bleeding scores, no difference was found. Two studies analysing the accessible sites separately found RBICs to be more favourable than DF and IDBs. Conversely, one study evaluating the efficacy of RBICs compared to IDBs, according to the GI scores, showed that IDBs achieved significantly greater reduction. Moreover, RBICs caused fewer gingival abrasions and were preferred by the study participants. CONCLUSION: Based on a descriptive and a meta-analysis of the available literature, it is synthesized that in gingivitis patients, a weak to very weak certainty exists that a RBIC is indicated for gingivitis and plaque reduction. The evidence supports user safety and participants' preferences.