DT News - UK - Electric toothbrushes outperform manual toothbrushes in long-term study

Search Dental Tribune

Electric toothbrushes outperform manual toothbrushes in long-term study

There are many different types of toothbrushes available. A number of studies have shown that electric toothbrushes are superior to manual toothbrushes. (Photograph: Dmitry Morgan/Shutterstock)

Mon. 4 August 2014

save

MANCHESTER, UK: From a review of studies on different kinds of toothbrushes, researchers from the UK have found that electric toothbrushes are more effective at removing dental plaque, which may play a key role in maintaining oral health. In addition, they found that electric toothbrushes that use oscillating-rotating technology are the most effective.

The review included 56 randomised controlled trials that followed over 5,000 children and adults who used either electric or manual toothbrushes for at least four weeks. The studies were conducted between 1964 and 2011.

Overall, the researchers found that electric toothbrushes better reduced plaque and gingivitis in both short- and long-term use compared with manual toothbrushes. Individuals who used electric toothbrushes showed an up to 21 per cent reduction in dental plaque and an up to 11 per cent reduction in gingivitis after three months of use. However, the benefits of this for long-term dental health remain unclear, the authors stated.

With regard to differences in brush head movement, the researchers found that oscillating-rotating brush heads contributed the most to reducing plaque and gingivitis in both the short and long term. Over 50 per cent of the studies included focused on oscillating-rotating technology.

The study, titled “Powered versus manual toothbrushing for oral health”, was conducted by the Cochrane Oral Health Group, one of 53 review groups worldwide belonging to the Cochrane Collaboration, an international non-profit organisation that provides up-to-date information about the effects of health care. The current study is the latest update of a review first published in 2003. It was published online on 17 June in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014.

To post a reply please login or register
advertisement
advertisement