Department of Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
CU Dental Innovation Center, Faculty of Dentistry, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Int Dent J. 2023 Feb;73(1):93-100. doi: 10.1016/j.identj.2022.10.001. Epub 2022 Nov 23.
The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of 2 newly designed toothbrushes used by elderly individuals based on plaque removal and gingival inflammation reduction compared with 2 commercially available toothbrushes.
This was a randomised, controlled, single-blind, 4-period crossover clinical trial. Thirty elderly participants meeting the inclusion criteria were randomly allocated into 4 groups, which determined the sequence of the 4 toothbrushes: CUdent/extra soft, CUdent/soft, GoodAge, and Colgate. The participants' baseline bleeding on probing (BOP) and plaque index (PI) were assessed by one blinded calibrated examiner, then their teeth were professionally cleaned. The participants were assigned to use the tested toothbrush and were recalled for postbrushing examination 2 weeks later to evaluate their BOP and PI. At the end of each test period, the participants used their own toothbrush during the 2-week washout period before using the next tested toothbrush.
The mean age of the 30 participants was 63.2 years. The mean baseline BOP score was 44.4%, and mean baseline PI was 2.7. Three participants dropped out; thus, 27 participants (15 females and 12 males) provided data throughout the study period. The participant characteristics and baseline data between the groups were similar. CUdent/extra soft and CUdent/soft demonstrated significantly better PI scores at the buccal surfaces than GoodAge (P < .05). CUdent/soft had the lowest PI scores and Colgate presented the lowest BOP score in every comparison for other areas; however, the differences were not significant. No signs of tissue trauma or abrasion were observed.
The newly designed toothbrushes were comparable to the commercially available toothbrushes in plaque removal efficacy and reducing gingival inflammation. CUdent/extra soft and soft were significantly more effective in plaque removal in the buccal regions than GoodAge.
本研究旨在评估两种新设计的牙刷在老年人群中的功效,通过比较两种市售牙刷,评估其在菌斑去除和牙龈炎症减少方面的效果。
这是一项随机、对照、单盲、四交叉临床试验。30 名符合纳入标准的老年参与者被随机分配到 4 组,确定 4 种牙刷的使用顺序:CUdent/extra soft、CUdent/soft、GoodAge 和 Colgate。由一名经过校准的盲检员评估参与者的基线探诊出血(BOP)和菌斑指数(PI),然后对其牙齿进行专业清洁。参与者被分配使用测试牙刷,并在 2 周后进行刷牙后检查,以评估其 BOP 和 PI。在每个测试期结束时,参与者在使用下一个测试牙刷之前使用自己的牙刷进行 2 周的洗脱期。
30 名参与者的平均年龄为 63.2 岁。平均基线 BOP 评分为 44.4%,平均基线 PI 为 2.7。有 3 名参与者退出;因此,27 名参与者(15 名女性和 12 名男性)在整个研究期间提供了数据。组间参与者特征和基线数据相似。CUdent/extra soft 和 CUdent/soft 在颊面的 PI 评分明显优于 GoodAge(P <.05)。CUdent/soft 的 PI 评分最低,Colgate 在其他区域的所有比较中 BOP 评分最低;然而,差异无统计学意义。未观察到组织创伤或磨损的迹象。
新设计的牙刷在去除菌斑和减轻牙龈炎症方面与市售牙刷相当。CUdent/extra soft 和 soft 在颊部区域的菌斑去除效果明显优于 GoodAge。