Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE: To evaluate the progression of wear and the effect of wear on subject-perceived and laboratory cleaning efficacy of two oscillating-rotating electric brush heads, Oral-B Precision Clean (PC) and a store brand Easyflex (SB) brush head, after 4, 6, 8 and 13 weeks of use. METHODS: This research consisted of three phases: (1) Subject questionnaires--A crossover, single-blinded study was conducted among healthy adults who were regular users of Oral-B oscillating-rotating electric toothbrushes. Subjects were recruited from a general population and randomized based on age and gender into one of four cohorts reflecting the time period of use for each product: 4, 6, 8 or 13 weeks. After brushing with their first product (either PC or SB) for the designated period of time, subjects completed a questionnaire evaluating the brush head on 17 attributes related to perceived cleaning performance, brush head condition (i.e., durability) and brush head feel (i.e., gentleness). Subjects then used the second test product for the same period of time and completed the same questionnaire. (2) Wear index investigation--At the end of each time period, subjects' worn brush head pairs were evaluated by an independent, blinded investigator to determine the wear index score. (3) Robot testing--To analyze the laboratory cleaning efficacy of worn refills in the laboratory, a representative sample of 12 subject brush head pairs for each of the four cohorts were evaluated (96 brush heads in total). To analyze the laboratory cleaning efficacy for PC at Week 13 with SB at Week 4, a separate set of 20 subjects (40 brush heads in total) were evaluated. A robot was used to brush standard typodonts (Frasaco A3) covered with plaque substitute with the worn brush head for 2 minutes under standardized, controlled conditions simulating human brushing behavior. A 3D laser scan system was used to measure the area still covered with plaque substitute at different dental sites. RESULTS: Subject questionnaire--267 subjects completed study questionnaires. Statistically significant superior ratings (P < 0.05) were obtained with the PC brush head compared to the SB brush head for virtually all attributes at all four time periods (16/17 attributes for Weeks 4, 6 and 8 and 17/17 at Week 13). Highly significant advantages (P < 0.0001) were seen for 'overall rating', 'overall cleaning' and 'ready to replace brush head' attributes. Wear Index-- A total of 486 brush head samples (243 pairs) were analyzed for wear. At all four time periods, PC brush heads had a statistically significantly lower (P < 0.0005) mean wear index than SB brush heads. Robot Test--136 brush heads were analyzed using a laboratory (robot) test to investigate cleaning efficacy. Directionally higher laboratory cleaning for PC versus SB was observed for all dental sites (35/35) for all time periods. Comparing PC at Week 13 with SB at Week 4 showed statistically significant differences (P < 0.05) in favor of PC for the majority of dental sites and time periods (23/35).

The ultimate purpose of both dental industry and dental education is to improve the oral health of the public. This report provides background information on the different roles and objectives of the dental industry and dental education communities, the different operating environment of each sector and also areas of common interest where collaboration will be of mutual benefit. The report addresses five areas for potential collaboration between the dental industry and the dental education communities: 1. Contribution to joint activities. 2. Effectiveness and efficiency. 3. Workforce needs. 4. Middle- and low-income countries. 5. The future of International Federation of Dental Educators and Associations (IFDEA). The traditional areas of support and their limitations that have been provided by industry are outlined in the report and some new approaches for collaboration are considered. Industry-based research has been an important factor in developing new products and technologies and in promoting oral health. However there is a need to facilitate the introduction of these developments at an early stage in the education process. Industry has to operate in an efficient manner to remain competitive and maximise its returns and therefore survive. The academic sector operates in a different environment and under different governance structures; although some trends are noted towards adoption of greater efficiency and financial accountability similar to industry. Opportunities to jointly develop best business practices should be explored. Industry has responded well to the oral health needs of the public through the development of new products and technologies. The education community needs to respond in a similar way by examining different healthcare delivery models worldwide and developing programmes to train members of the dental team to cater for future needs and demands of communities in different regions of the world. The reputation of industry-based scientists and clinicians is high, and their role in contributing to the dental education process in practical ways needs to be explored and further developed. Closer relationships between industry scientists and faculty and students could assist industrys need and desire to develop new technologies for the broader dental care system. The corporate sector can play a key role in the future success of IFDEA by providing support and expertise in developing areas such as regional leadership institutes, a Global Faculty and Network and in collaborating in developing continuing education programmes as well as involvement in its governance. Thirteen recommendations are made in the report. These are considered to be important initial steps in developing the already strong relationship between the education and corporate sectors. Partnership and collaborating more effectively along the lines suggested should, almost certainly, generate mutually beneficial outcomes, whilst serving over the long term to elevate the publics oral health status on a global basis.

AIM: The aim of this article is to provide a review of common power toothbrush technologies with a focus on the oscillating-rotating motion used in a novel toothbrush; describe features to drive compliance such as the "SmartGuide" innovation; and finally recommend steps to motivate patients to adopt a power toothbrush as part of their home care regimen. BACKGROUND: Contemporary power toothbrushes are available with various modes of actions, bristle designs, and features. Clinical research shows these factors can impact the effectiveness of a toothbrush by altering its ability to remove plaque, particularly in areas that are difficult to access. An independent systematic review of power toothbrush technologies showed toothbrushes with a rotation-oscillation motion provided significant advantages over manual toothbrushes for plaque removal and gingivitis reduction. No other powered toothbrush technology showed results as consistently superior to manual toothbrushes. CONCLUSIONS: Recently, an advanced oscillating-rotating toothbrush was introduced, the Oral-B Triumph with SmartGuide (Procter & Gamble, Cincinnati, OH, USA), using clinically proven oscillating-rotating technology and incorporating a unique wireless remote display to drive good brushing technique and increase brushing time. This type of innovation in power toothbrush technology provides dental professionals and consumers with additional home care tools to help improve oral health. In recommending any power toothbrush, dental professionals should reinforce the benefits to patients in a way that addresses their values, use experiential learning tools to ensure they understand how to use the brush, explain the desired outcomes, and gain their commitment to comply with the recommendation.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the safety and plaque removal efficacy of an advanced rotating-oscillating power toothbrush relative to a sonic toothbrush with either a standard or compact brush head. METHODOLOGY: Two studies used a randomized, examiner-blind, two-treatment, crossover design. In Study 1, subjects were instructed to use their first randomly assigned toothbrush for five to seven days and then, after abstaining from all oral hygiene for 24 hours, were assessed with the Rustogi, et al. Modified Navy Plaque Index. They then brushed for two minutes and post-brushing plaque scores were recorded. Subjects were assigned to the alternate toothbrush and the procedures were repeated. In Study 2, subjects alternated using both brushes for approximately 10 days, then had four study visits three to four days apart (some variability based on patient scheduling). In Study 1, Oral-B Triumph with a FlossAction brush head and Sonicare Elite 7300 with a full-size, standard head were compared in a two-treatment, two-period crossover study. Study 2 compared Oral-B Triumph with a FlossAction brush head and Sonicare Elite 7300 with a compact head in a two-treatment, four-period crossover study. RESULTS: Fifty subjects completed Study 1 and 48 completed Study 2. All brushes were found to be safe and significantly reduced plaque after a single brushing. In Study 1, Oral-B Triumph was statistically significantly (p < 0.001) more effective in plaque removal than Sonicare Elite 7300 with the full-size brush head: whole mouth = 24% better, marginal = 31% better, approximal = 21% better. In Study 2, Oral-B Triumph was statistically significantly (p < 0.001) more effective than Sonicare Elite 7300 with the compact brush head: whole mouth = 12.2% better, marginal = 14.6% better, approximal = 12% better. CONCLUSION: Oral-B Triumph with its rotation-oscillation action was significantly more effective in single-use plaque removal than Sonicare Elite 7300 with its side-to-side sonic action when fitted with either a standard or a compact brush head.

BACKGROUND: The Rustogi et al. Modified Navy (RMNPI) and Turesky et al Modification of the Quigley Hein (TQHPI) plaque indices are commonly used to measure plaque removal. This study evaluated the possible correlations of both indices using data relative to a single use assessment of plaque removal using commercially available toothbrushes. METHODS: Single use crossover study designs have been previously reported. Disclosed plaque was scored pre- and post-brushing using both the RMNPI and the TQHPI. Sixty subjects, with an initial mean RMNPI score of 0.6 or greater, were enrolled and completed the study. No minimum score was required for TQHPI. After the initial scoring, the order for each index was randomized so that each subject was scored with either RMNPI followed by TQHPI or vice versa. Two manual toothbrushes [Oral-B CrossAction (CA) and Colgate Navigator (NA)] and one battery-powered brush (Crest SpinBrush Pro) (SBP) were evaluated in the trial. One examiner performed all clinical measurements. Pearson correlations were performed on whole mouth, buccal, and lingual plaque scores for the CA toothbrush. RESULTS: Strong positive correlations were found between the two plaque indices for pre- and post-brushing scores for the whole mouth and on lingual and buccal surfaces, where Pearson correlation coefficients ranged between 0.963 and 0.995. There was no correlation between the pre-brushing plaque score and the amount of plaque removed by brushing indicating that higher plaque levels before brushing do not necessarily predict that greater amounts of plaque will be removed during toothbrushing. Each toothbrush was found to be safe and significantly reduced plaque levels after a single brushing (t-test, p=0.0001). Significantly greater plaque reductions were found with the CA than the NA and SBP toothbrushes at whole mouth, lingual, and approximal surfaces for both indices (analysis of variance (ANOVA), p < or = 0.0002 for all comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: Strong positive correlations were found between two plaque indices (the RMNPI and TQHPI) for pre- and post-brushing scores at whole mouth, lingual, and buccal surfaces as assessed using data from a single use assessment of plaque removal. Efficacy data from this study demonstrated the CA toothbrush provided superior cleaning when compared to the NA manual toothbrush and SBP battery toothbrush. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Two commonly used indices for assessing plaque removal in clinical studies are RMNPI and TQHPI. However, each index differs in the way plaque is scored. This study used both indices to assess comparative toothbrush efficacy and showed a strong correlation between indices for both pre- and post- brushing plaque scores. The result suggests that both indices demonstrate sufficient sensitivity to differentiate toothbrush efficacy.

The design of the modern conventional manual toothbrush can be attributed to Dr. Robert Hutson, a Californian periodontist, who in the early 1950s developed the multitufted, flattrimmed, end-rounded nylon filament brush that became known as the Oral-B manual toothbrush. The trademark Oral-B emphasized that this was an oral brush, designed to clean all parts of the oral cavity, not merely a toothbrush. Flat-trimmed conventional toothbrushes based on the original Oral-B design have good plaque-removing capability when used carefully. However, limitations in terms of patients" brushing technique and brushing time necessitated a radical change in bristle pattern to improve performance, especially at approximal sites and along the gumline. RATIONALE FOR PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT: Detailed studies of the tooth-brushing process, using advanced scientific and ergonomic research methods, led to new toothbrush designs intended to maximize the efficacy of brushing efforts. These studies showed that the point of greatest interproximal penetration occurs when the direction of brushing changes; bristles angle back into the interproximal space, moving down and back up the adjoining approximal surface. These mechanics were further optimized on the basis of standardized evaluations of brush-design characteristics, including combinations of tuft lengths, insertion angles and tuft layout. With conventional vertical bristles these improvements yield limited benefits because only a few bristles are correctly positioned at the interproximal junction when the brush changes direction. Ultimately, a design with bristle tufts arranged at 16 masculine from vertical along the horizontal brush head axis was identified, in which the maximum number of bristles operated at the optimum angle throughout the brushing cycle. This design was significantly more effective (p < 0.001) than others in terms of penetration (by 9.6%) and cleaning effectiveness per brush stroke (by 15.5%). EFFECTIVENESS: This discovery paved the way for a new toothbrush design with a unique patented array of tufts, which became known as the Oral-B CrossAction brush. This design was selected for extensive independent studies designed to evaluate plaque removal at the gingival margins and in the approximal areas and longer-term control of gingivitis, relative to current standard designs. In a series of studies (published in 2000), 14 single-brushing comparisons and 2 longer-term studies demonstrated the consistent superiority of the Oral-B CrossAction brush over the equivalent commercial standards. Since then, several additional studies have contributed further positive performance data for the CrossAction brush. Two of the studies demonstrated that plaque removal by this brush was superior to that of 15 other manual toothbrushes, and further investigations contributed similarly positive data. Longer-term data have confirmed superior CrossAction performance and the long-term benefits of improved efficacy, particularly for gingivitis. DISCUSSION: Novel approaches to toothbrush design have produced a toothbrush that, when tested in a large number of clinical studies, has consistently met or exceeded established standards of efficacy. The literature contains a wealth of performance data on various toothbrush designs, but none of these designs shows the year-on-year consistency and reproducibility of the Oral-B CrossAction.

OBJECTIVE: To compare two sonic toothbrushes in relation to the reversal of experimental gingivitis. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Subjects refrained from brushing mandibular teeth for 21 days. During a 4-week treatment phase, the right or left side of the mouth was brushed with either the Sonic Complete (SC) or Sonicare Elite (SE) toothbrush as randomly allocated. Plaque and gingivitis were assessed on day 0, after 21 days of no oral hygiene and after 1, 2 and 4 weeks of brushing twice daily. RESULTS: Thirty-four subjects provided evaluable data. The experimentally induced gingivitis (EIG) resulted in higher bleeding and plaque scores compared with day 0. The mean plaque scores at day 21 changed from 3.09 to 1.30 for the SC, and from 3.02 to 1.21 for the SE. At the end of the treatment period, there was no significant difference between the two brushes. The mean bleeding scores changed from 1.87 (day 21) to 0.97 for the SC, and from 1.83 to 0.92 for the SE. For the assessments at 1, 2 and 4 weeks post-EIG, both brushes showed a significant decrease in bleeding scores. There were no statistically significant differences between brushes.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to compare the effect of an oscillating/pulsating power toothbrush (Oral-B ProfessionalCare 7000; PC 7000) and a high-frequency power toothbrush (Philips Sonicare Elite; SE) on the reversal of experimental gingivitis. METHODS: The study had a randomised, examiner-blind, split-mouth design. After dental prophylaxis, subjects refrained from brushing mandibular teeth for 21 days to allow development of gingivitis. During a 4-week treatment phase, the right or left side of the mouth was brushed with either the PC 7000 or the SE toothbrush as randomly allocated. Plaque and gingivitis were assessed at baseline (Day 0), after 21 days of no oral hygiene, and after 1, 2 and 4 weeks of brushing twice daily. Gingival abrasion was assessed at Day 0 and after 1, 2 and 4 weeks of product use. RESULTS: Of 38 enrolled subjects, 35 provided evaluable data. The experimentally induced gingivitis (EIG) phase resulted in higher bleeding and plaque scores as compared to Day 0. During the treatment phase, plaque and bleeding scores were significantly lower with the PC 7000 than the SE toothbrush. After 4 weeks of use, the mean plaque scores changed from 2.78 (Day 21 of EIG phase) to 0.70 for the PC 7000 and from 2.67 (Day 21) to 0.88 for the SE. The mean bleeding scores changed from 1.86 (Day 21) to 1.24 for the PC 7000 and from 1.88 (Day 21) to 1.42 for the SE. No major differences were found between brushes with regard to gingival abrasion. CONCLUSIONS: The oscillating/pulsating power toothbrush (Oral-B ProfessionalCare 7000) was more effective than the high-frequency power toothbrush (Philips Sonicare Elite) at plaque removal and improvement of gingival condition, with no greater potential for causing gingival abrasion.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the safety and efficacy of an oscillating/pulsating power toothbrush (Oral-B ProfessionalCareTM 7000; PC 7000) fitted with either the standard FlexiSoft (PC 7000/EB17) brush head or the novel Pro Polisher (PC 7000/ EB-Prophy) and a high-frequency toothbrush (Philips Sonicare Elite; SE), in their relative ability to remove plaque and naturally occurring extrinsic dental stain over a six-week period. METHODS: This randomised, examiner-blind, parallel group study involved 90 healthy subjects from a general population. All subjects received a baseline plaque (Turesky et al. modified Quigley-Hein Plaque Index), stain (Lobene Stain Index) and tooth shade (VITAPAN Shade Guide) [Vita] assessment and an oral tissue examination. After training in the use of their randomly assigned device, subjects were instructed to brush twice daily for 2 min and returned after 3, 4 and 6 weeks of product use for a repeat of each clinical assessment. RESULTS: Reductions from baseline in mean plaque and extrinsic dental stain scores were significant at Weeks 3, 4 and 6 in all three treatment groups. By Week 6, mean reductions from baseline in whole mouth plaque scores were 32%, 27% and 14% in the PC 7000/EB-Prophy, PC 7000/EB17 and SE groups, respectivety. For the body of the tooth, mean reductions from baseline at Week 6 in total stain were 89%, 89% and 80%, respectively. Between treatment group comparisons consistently revealed that the PC 7000 toothbrush plus the EB-Prophy or EB17 brush head removed significantly more plaque and extrinsic stain (total stain, stain area and stain intensity) than the SE toothbrush at 3, 4 and 6 weeks. The EB-Prophy group had a greater proportion of subjects showing a 2-3+ change in Vita shade scores at each time point compared to the other two brushes; at Week 6 the proportions were 67% in the PC 7000/EB-Prophy group, 30% in the PC 7000/EB17 group, and 7% in the SE group. The PC 7000/EB17, PC 7000/EB-Prophy and the SE were found to be safe as used in the study. CONCLUSIONS: The oscillating/rotating/pulsating PC 7000 (fitted with either the standard EB17 or novel EB-Prophy brush head) is more effective at removal of plaque and naturally occurring extrinsic tooth stain, and the PC 7000 plus EB-Prophy in the improvement of tooth shade, than the high-frequency SE toothbrush.

AIM: To compare the safety and plaque removal efficacy of an oscillating/ pulsating toothbrush (Professional Care Series, Oral-B Laboratories; PCS) and a high frequency toothbrush (Sonicare Elite, Philips Oral Healthcare; SE). METHODS: The study had a randomised, examiner-blind, crossover design. Sixty-one subjects aged 19-64 years were enrolled. After 23-25 hours of no oral hygiene, subjects received an oral tissue examination and those with pre-brushing whole mouth mean plaque scores > or = 0.60 measured by the Rustogi modified Navy Plaque Index were randomly assigned to treatment sequence. Subjects brushed with their assigned toothbrush for 2 minutes using a commercially available dentifrice. Oral tissues were then re-examined and post-brushing plaque scores recorded. After a brief washout period, the above procedures were repeated with the alternate toothbrush. One examiner blinded to the treatment sequence performed all clinical measurements. RESULTS: All 61 subjects completed the study. Both toothbrushes significantly reduced plaque levels after a single brushing (t-test, p < 0.0001). However, the PCS was significantly more effective than the SE in whole mouth plaque removal and in reducing plaque from marginal, buccal, lingual and approximal surfaces (ANOVA, p < 0.0001). Whole mouth plaque was reduced by 88% versus 61% and approximal plaque by 97% versus 73% for the PCS and SE toothbrushes, respectively. There was no evidence of hard or soft tissue trauma after a single-use of either toothbrush. CONCLUSION: Based on the findings of this single-use clinical evaluation, the action of the oscillating/ pulsating power toothbrush is more effective at plaque removal than a high frequency power toothbrush.