title: An Eight-Week Clinical Evaluation of an Oscillating-Rotating Power Toothbrush with a Brush Head Utilizing Angled Bristles Compared with a Sonic Toothbrush in the Reduction of Gingivitis and Plaque.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  To evaluate and compare the efficacy of an oscillating-rotating (O-R) power toothbrush with a brush head utilizing angled bristles to a marketed sonic toothbrush in the reduction of plaque and gingivitis over an eight-week period.
  
  
  METHODS
  This study used a randomized, examiner-blind, single-center, two-treatment, parallel group, eight-week design. Subjects with mild-to-moderate plaque and gingivitis were evaluated for baseline whole mouth, gingival margin, and approximal plaque, gingivitis, and gingival bleeding. Clinical assessments were performed using the Modified Gingival Index, Gingival Bleeding Index, and the Rustogi Modified Navy Plaque Index. Subjects received either the O-R brush (Oral-B Professional Care 1000 [D16u] with Oral-B CrossAction brush head [EB50]) or the sonic brush (Sonicare DiamondClean with the standard DiamondClean brush head). Subjects brushed twice daily for two minutes per brushing with the assigned brush and a standard fluoride dentifrice for eight weeks before returning for plaque and gingivitis evaluations using the same methods. Prior to baseline and Week 8 measurements, participants abstained from oral hygiene for 12 hours.
  
  
  RESULTS
  One hundred and forty-eight subjects completed the study; 75 in the O-R group and 73 in the sonic group. Both brushes demonstrated statistically significant reductions in plaque and gingivitis over the eight-week study period (p < 0.00 1). The O-R brush was statistically significantly more effective in reducing plaque and gingivitis than the sonic brush. Whole mouth, gingival margin, and approximal plaque reductions were 27.7%, 46.8%, and 29.3% greater, respectively, compared with the sonic brush, while the reductions in gingivitis, gingival bleeding, and number of bleeding sites were 34.6%, 36.4%, and 36.1% greater, respectively, for the O-R brush than for the sonic brush (p < 0.001 for all six measures). No adverse events were observed for either brush.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The plaque and gingivitis reductions for the O-R power brush incorporating the angled-bristled brush head were significantly greater than for the sonic power brush.
authors.forename: Renzo A
authors.initials: RA
authors.lastname: Ccahuana-Vasquez
authors.forename: Erinn
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Conde
authors.forename: Julie M
authors.initials: JM
authors.lastname: Grender
authors.forename: Pamela
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Cunningham
authors.forename: Jimmy
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Qaqish
authors.forename: C Ram
authors.initials: CR
authors.lastname: Goyal
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000368:Aged; D002327:Cariostatic Agents / Q000627:therapeutic use; D003773:Dental Plaque / Q000517:prevention & control*; D003774:Dental Plaque Index; D003802:Dentifrices / Q000627:therapeutic use; D004867:Equipment Design; D005260:Female; D005459:Fluorides / Q000627:therapeutic use; D005500:Follow-Up Studies; D005884:Gingival Hemorrhage / Q000517:prevention & control; D005891:Gingivitis / Q000517:prevention & control*; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008875:Middle Aged; D010512:Periodontal Index; D016037:Single-Blind Method; D013499:Surface Properties; D014099:Toothbrushing / Q000295:instrumentation*; D016896:Treatment Outcome; D055815:Young Adult
chemical_list: D002327:Cariostatic Agents; D003802:Dentifrices; D005459:Fluorides