title: Different powered toothbrushes for plaque control and gingival health.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Powered brushes were first introduced commercially in the 1960s. A recent systematic review suggested the superiority of certain modes of powered over manual toothbrushing for plaque and gingivitis reduction. That review did not allow for direct comparison between different modes of powered toothbrush.
  
  
  OBJECTIVE
  To compare different modes of powered toothbrushing against each other for plaque reduction and the health of the gingivae. Other factors to be assessed were calculus and stain removal, cost, dependability and adverse effects.
  
  
  METHODS
  The following databases were searched: Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 26 July 2010); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 3); MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 26 July 2010); EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 26 July 2010); CINAHL via EBSCO (1982 to 26 July 2010). There were no language restrictions.
  
  
  METHODS
  Trials were considered for inclusion with the following criteria: random allocation of participants; no compromised manual dexterity; unsupervised powered toothbrushing for at least 4 weeks. The primary outcomes were the plaque and gingivitis scores after powered toothbrush use during trial period.
  
  
  METHODS
  Data extraction was performed independently and in duplicate. The authors of trials were contacted to provide missing data where possible. The effect measure for each meta-analysis was the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the random-effects model. Potential sources of heterogeneity were assessed.
  
  
  RESULTS
  The review included data from 15 trials with 1015 participants. Due to the dearth of trials assessing the same mode of action, no definitive conclusions can be stated regarding the superiority of one mode of powered toothbrush over any other. Only minor and transient side effects were reported. Cost, dependability were not reported.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Further trials of good quality are required to establish if any mode of action has superiority over the other modes of action for powered toothbrushes.
authors.affiliation: South West Cleft Unit, Frenchay Hospital, Frenchay Park Road, Bristol, UK, BS16 1LE.
authors.forename: Scott A
authors.initials: SA
authors.lastname: Deacon
authors.forename: Anne-Marie
authors.initials: AM
authors.lastname: Glenny
authors.forename: Chris
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Deery
authors.forename: Peter G
authors.initials: PG
authors.lastname: Robinson
authors.forename: Mike
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Heanue
authors.forename: A Damien
authors.initials: AD
authors.lastname: Walmsley
authors.forename: William C
authors.initials: WC
authors.lastname: Shaw
mesh_terms: D003742:Dental Devices, Home Care / Q000009:adverse effects; D003773:Dental Plaque / Q000517:prevention & control*; D005891:Gingivitis / Q000517:prevention & control*; D006801:Humans; D016032:Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; D014099:Toothbrushing / Q000009:adverse effects / Q000295:instrumentation*