View the CAT printer-friendly / share this CAT
Title Effectiveness Of Electric Toothbrushes In Orthodontic Patients
Clinical Question In patients undergoing orthodontic treatment, are power toothbrushes more effective than manual toothbrushes in reducing the incidence and prevalence of gingivitis?
Clinical Bottom Line At this time there is insufficient evidence to conclude whether power toothbrushes are more effective than manual toothbrushes in reducing the incidence and prevalence of gingivitis in orthodontic patients. (See Comments on the CAT below)
Best Evidence (you may view more info by clicking on the PubMed ID link)
PubMed ID Author / Year Patient Group Study type
(level of evidence)
#1) 19571055Huang/2011Patients undergoing orthodontic treatmentSystematic Review
Key resultsOf the 59 studies identified as potentially relevant, only five met the inclusion criteria and were included in this systematic review. These five studies investigated various types of power toothbrushes. Among the studies reviewed, only one demonstrated that side-to-side power toothbrushes were significantly more effective than manual toothbrushes in reducing gingivitis in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment. However, the reduction in gingivitis associated with the use of side-to-side power toothbrushes was modest, as shown by the 0.5 point reduction in the Loe and Silness gingival index.
#2) 18249278Kaklamanos/2008301 patients undergoing orthodontic treatmentMeta-Analysis
Key resultsFive trials were considered appropriate for the meta-analysis. Based on quality assessment and the short experimental period of these trials, current evidence is insufficient to support the comparative efficacy of powered toothbrushes in reducing gingivitis in patients undergoing fixed orthodontic appliance therapy.
Evidence Search "Toothbrushing"[Mesh] "Orthodontics"[Mesh]
Comments on
The Evidence
The paper by Huang is a systematic review of randomized controlled clinical trials. This systematic review included 5 trials with an unknown number of patients. There was a comprehensive, detailed search for relevant trials and the individual trials were assessed for validity. A meta-analysis was not performed. The Kaklamanos article was a systematic review of randomized control trials with a comprehensive, detailed search for relevant trials. Five trials included in this systematic review included a total of 301 patients. Each of the individual trials was assessed for validity and a meta-analysis was performed.
Applicability The patients included in these trials are representative of the patients likely to be seen in orthodontic practices. There were no harms associated to the used of power and manual toothbrush. Moreover, both toothbrushes were efficient in promoting plaque removal and control of gingivitis in orthodontic patients. Patients are likely to expect that the power toothbrush will provide more beneficial results than manual toothbrush, however, no real conclusions can be drawn based on the current evidence.
Specialty/Discipline (Orthodontics) (Periodontics) (Dental Hygiene)
Keywords Power toothbrush, Oral Hygiene, Orthodontics
ID# 749
Date of submission: 03/07/2011spacer
E-mail martineze15@livemail.uthscsa.edu
Author Esperanza R. Martinez
Co-author(s) e-mail
Faculty mentor/Co-author Cristina Villar, DDS
Faculty mentor/Co-author e-mail Villar@uthscsa.edu
Basic Science Rationale
(Mechanisms that may account for and/or explain the clinical question, i.e. is the answer to the clinical question consistent with basic biological, physical and/or behavioral science principles, laws and research?)
post a rationale
None available
Comments and Evidence-Based Updates on the CAT
post a comment
by Jessica Xia, John Luke Covalt, Marjan Malakouti (San Antonio, Texas) on 01/06/2014
The present CAT examines a meta-analysis and a review, both indicating that further evidence is needed. The Huang review date is incorrect on the Cat; listed as 2011 when it is actually 2009. A recent (2013) RCT of 46 subjects, found that powered toothbrushes significantly reduced plaque compared to manual, although it has the same limitations as the CAT found; short duration. [Erbe, 2013, PMID: 23726325 ]

Return to Found CATs list