Faculty Bibliography

The Oral-B range of power toothbrushes are based on a clinically proven oscillating/rotating action. This review considers the extensive series of laboratory and clinical studies involved in the development of the Oral-B power toothbrushes with three-dimensional (3D) brush head action (i.e. oscillating/rotating/pulsating), now known as the Oral-B ProfessionalCare Series. The unique, highly effective cleaning performance of the 3D action incorporated in the D15 and D17 models is proven in both the laboratory and clinical environments, thereby establishing an evidence-based platform for the development of the most recent ProfessionalCare 7000. In the early development phase, in-vitro studies indicated that the additional pulsating action and advancements in filament technology improved approximal penetration, where plaque removal is most difficult. In-vitro models provide a useful development tool for the rapid assessment of design modifications, while controlling many factors that confound in-vivo studies, but the relevance of their findings needs to be confirmed in the clinical situation by direct improvements in oral health. Results from well-controlled, randomised clinical studies in the development programme have demonstrated the superiority of the D15 and D17 models with 3D action over a manual toothbrush and other power toothbrushes of various actions and designs in the improvement of oral health outcomes such as plaque removal (especially from approximal sites), reduction of gingival inflammation, and control of calculus and stain formation, with no greater potential to cause oral tissue abrasion. Furthermore, user acceptance of the oscillating/rotating/pulsating toothbrush may encourage long-term compliance during normal use.

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.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the safety and plaque removal efficacy of two electric toothbrushes, one a rechargeable oscillating/pulsating toothbrush with a small round brush head (Oral-B ProfessionalCare 7000; PC 7000), the other a battery-operated toothbrush with a dual moving brush head (Crest SpinBrush Pro; SBP). METHODS: The study had a randomised, examiner-blind, two-arm crossover design. All subjects received an oral prophylaxis and used both toothbrushes on alternating days for a two-week practice period. After abstaining from all oral hygiene procedures for 23-25 hours, subjects received an oral tissue examination and those with pre-brushing whole mouth mean plaque scores > or = 0.60 measured by the Rustogi et al. 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: A total of 70 subjects (24 males and 46 females) were enrolled and completed the study. Each toothbrush was found to be safe and significantly reduced plaque levels after a single brushing. The PC 7000 was significantly more effective in plaque removal than the SBP at all tooth areas, reducing whole mouth plaque by 61% versus 58% and plaque from approximal surfaces by 69% versus 65%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The action of the oscillating/pulsating toothbrush with a small round brush head, Oral-B ProfessionalCare 7000, is more effective in plaque removal than the battery-operated Crest SpinBrush Pro toothbrush with a larger dual moving brush head.

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.

PURPOSE: To investigate the safety and efficacy of a novel angled-bristled toothbrush in comparison with three established brushes. METHODS: The Oral-B CrossAction Vitalizer toothbrush was compared with two manual toothbrushes, the Oral-B CrossAction and Oral-B Advantage, and the battery-operated Crest SpinBrush Pro brush in three independent single-use, examiner-blind, crossover studies. In each study, over 50 healthy subjects from a normal population brushed with their randomly assigned toothbrush for 1 minute without instruction. Subjects returned after a 1-week washout period and brushed with the alternate toothbrush. At each visit, oral hard and soft tissues and plaque were examined before and after brushing. Plaque was evaluated using the Rustogi Modified Navy Plaque Index. RESULTS: Each tested toothbrush significantly (P=0.0001) reduced plaque levels after a single brushing. However, in all three studies, the CrossAction Vitalizer was significantly (P=0.0001) more effective than the comparator brushes in plaque removal from the whole mouth, the gingival margin and approximal surfaces. All toothbrushes were found to be safe with no evidence of oral hard or soft tissue trauma.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the safety and efficacy of a novel battery-operated interdental cleaning device (Oral-B Hummingbird) [ID], fitted with either a flossette or pick attachment, versus hand-held dental floss in the reduction of plaque and gingivitis when combined with manual tooth brushing over a 30-day period. METHODOLOGY: This randomized, examiner blind, parallel group study assessed three treatment groups: ID/flossette (ID/F), ID/pick (ID/P), and unwaxed manual dental floss. All groups used the same soft manual toothbrush and toothpaste. The 84 subjects were stratified to treatment groups based on initial whole mouth mean plaque scores, gingivitis scores, and gender. Subjects were instructed to brush twice daily and use their assigned interdental method once daily in the evening before brushing. Gingivitis, gingival bleeding, and plaque were evaluated at baseline and Day 30. RESULTS: A total of 78 subjects completed all aspects of the study and were included in the analyses. There was no significant difference between treatment groups in baseline plaque, gingivitis, and bleeding scores. After 30 days, statistically significant reductions from baseline gingivitis and bleeding scores were found for all groups (p < 0.0001), but there were no significant statistical differences among groups. Whole mouth and approximal plaque scores were significantly reduced from baseline in the manual floss and ID/F groups after 30 days of product use, with no significant difference between groups. Plaque reduction for both the manual floss and ID/F groups was significantly greater than the ID/P group. All interdental cleaning methods were safe as used in the study, with no evidence of oral hard or soft tissue trauma. CONCLUSION: The Oral-B Hummingbird was safe and effective in reducing approximal plaque and gingival inflammation, and provides a useful alternative device for interdental cleaning.

OBJECTIVE: This study was designed to evaluate the safety and plaque removal efficacy of a tooth wipe (Oral-B Brush-Ups) using a manual toothbrush as a control. METHODOLOGY: Twenty-five healthy subjects from a general population were enrolled in this randomized, single-use, crossover study. After 23-25 hours of no oral hygiene, oral hard and soft tissues were examined, and disclosed plaque was scored using the Turesky, et al. modification of the Quigley Hein Plaque Index. Subjects used their randomly assigned product for a timed period of one minute without instruction, after which hard and soft tissues and plaque scores were reassessed. Subjects returned to the clinic after a one-week washout period, and the clinical procedures were repeated before and after use of the alternate product. All clinical measurements were made by one examiner who was masked to treatment sequence. RESULTS: Both the tooth wipe and toothbrush were found to be safe, and significantly reduced plaque levels from whole mouth, facial, and lingual surfaces (p < 0.0001). The toothbrush removed significantly greater plaque than the tooth wipe (p < 0.0001) on whole mouth surfaces (49% vs. 29%), facial surfaces (71% vs. 44%), and lingual surfaces (25% vs. 13%). CONCLUSION: The tooth wipe provides an effective method of plaque removal when tooth brushing is not practical.

Plaque removal by a toothbrush results from a physical scrubbing of bristles on the tooth surface that removes adherent plaque bacteria. Because of the frequency of brush head motion, some power toothbrushes generally remove plaque more effectively than a manual brush. One power toothbrush, Philips Sonicare, claims also to remove plaque as a result of dynamic fluid activity. This effect has been shown in laboratory studies but clinical evidence is currently lacking. This review evaluated the data from well-controlled clinical studies carried out in normal subjects from a general population comparing the Sonicare toothbrushes with the Oral-B oscillating/rotating power toothbrush technology. It focuses on plaque removal from approximal surfaces where it is difficult for toothbrush bristles to reach, as it is here that any dynamic fluid effect should be most apparent. Results from the review found no evidence to support a greater efficacy for the Sonicare toothbrushes either generally or at approximal surfaces. Data revealed that the oscillating/rotating toothbrush was more effective than the Sonicare toothbrushes with respect to plaque removal. It is possible that factors associated with the clinical situation such as damping resulting from bristle contact with the tooth surface and the high viscosity of saliva and dentifrice may counteract dynamic fluid activity in vivo. This review indicates that dynamic fluid activity beyond the reach of bristles as demonstrated in the laboratory is yet unproven in the clinical situation.

The safety, efficacy and acceptability of an oscillating/rotating powered toothbrush was assessed in patients rehabilitated with fixed prostheses on implants. One hundred consecutive patients (aged 18-80; mean 56.3; 51 females), who met the inclusion/exclusion criteria and who participated in a regular annual recall scheme, were enrolled. They were instructed on how to use the powered toothbrush, as well as on classical interdental plaque control. The electric toothbrush had to be used twice daily for 2 min. The following periodontal parameters were measured at baseline and at 3 months, 6 months and 12 months: presence/absence of gingival and/or mucosal ulceration/desquamation; sulcus bleeding index; probing pocket depth; periodontal pocket-bleeding index and gingival recession. At 3 months and at the end of the study, patients completed a questionnaire concerning the overall acceptability and convenience of the powered toothbrush, as compared with their habitual manual toothbrush. A total of 80 patients completed the study. No dropouts were related to the use of the powered toothbrush. All parameters improved over the course of the study. The mean overall pocket depth decreased from 3.3 mm at baseline to 3.0 mm at 12 months, while the mean decrease in recession was 0.1 mm at 12 months. During the 1-year observation, there was a slight gain in periodontal attachment level. Gingival ulcerations were not observed at any point in the study. High scores for convenience and comfort of the powered toothbrush were reported, and the majority (95%) said that they would continue to use it for habitual oral hygiene. It is concluded that the powered toothbrush investigated is effective, safe and comfortable for patients rehabilitated by means of oral implant-supported prostheses.

OBJECTIVE: Limited evidence has suggested that a worn toothbrush may be significantly less effective than a new brush with respect to plaque removal. Two independent studies, one with a manual toothbrush and one with a powered toothbrush, were undertaken to compared the ability of these toothbrushes as new and after three months' use to remove plaque. METHODOLOGY: Subjects from a general population were given either an Oral-B CrossAction manual toothbrush (Study 1) or a Braun Oral-B Battery (D4) toothbrush (Study 2). They were instructed to use their respective toothbrushes twice per day for a period of three months. After this time, those subjects meeting the studies' respective inclusion criteria entered the single-use, cross-over phase of the two studies. Both studies involved disclosing the teeth prior to measuring plaque. In Study 1, plaque was recorded using the Proximal Marginal Plaque Index and subjects brushed for one minute, by random assignment, with either a new or a worn toothbrush. In Study 2, plaque was measured using the Modified Quigley-Hein Plaque Index and subjects brushed for two minutes with either new or used brush heads, by random assignment. After a period of approximately one week, subjects returned to the test facilities and brushed with the alternate brush. RESULTS: Study 1 showed that both the new and the worn CrossAction toothbrushes significantly reduced plaque scores (p < 0.0001). A comparison of the two toothbrushes revealed no significant difference for whole-mouth plaque scores; however, at approximal sites the new toothbrush was significantly more effective than the worn brush (p = 0.033). In Study 2, as in Study 1, brushing with either a new or a worn brush head significantly reduced plaque scores (p < 0.0001). A comparison of the efficacies of the new and worn D4 toothbrushes revealed a non-significant tendency for the new brush head to remove more plaque than the worn brush head. However, when plaque removal was assessed for subjects using brush heads with the most extreme wear, i.e., scores of 3 or 4 (n = 15), a significant difference (p < 0.05) between new and worn brush heads was observed for the whole-mouth and approximal surfaces. CONCLUSION: The results from these two studies provide further data in support of the hypothesis that a worn toothbrush is less efficient with respect to plaque removal than a new brush. Patients should therefore be encouraged to replace their toothbrush regularly before bristle wear becomes excessive.