Total bacteria (colony count) · Orthodontic patients (any age) undergoing orthodontic treatment (mostly fixed appliances)
Chlorhexidine mouthwash may reduce total bacteria colony counts versus blank control in the short term, but the evidence is very uncertain (very low certainty).
1 finding from 1 review
Gingival inflammation-related index · People undergoing orthodontic treatment (any age; 9 to 34 years in included studies)
Herbal mouthwash reduced some gingival inflammation-related indices, but certainty is very low.
1 finding from 1 review
Cariogenic bacteria (Mutans streptococci) · People undergoing orthodontic treatment (any age; 9 to 34 years in included studies)
Herbal mouthwash showed mixed effects on Mutans streptococci, with very low-certainty evidence.
1 finding from 1 review
Intervention not reported
Adverse events
1 finding from 1 review
Plaque · Adults and children (predominantly adults; one study in children), with natural dentition
Xylitol sugar-free gum significantly reduced plaque quantity versus no-gum/control (SMD -0.743, 95% CI -1.148 to -0.338), with high heterogeneity (I2 = 86.0%; ungraded).
1 finding from 1 review
Plaque · Adults and children (predominantly adults; one study in children), with natural dentition
Sugar-free chewing gum significantly reduced plaque quantity versus no-gum/control (SMD -0.778, 95% CI -1.167 to -0.390), with high heterogeneity (I2 = 86.6%) and no GRADE rating (ungraded).
2 findings from 1 review
Plaque · Individuals of any age with no reported disability that might affect toothbrushing (including people wearing orthodontic appliances)
Powered toothbrush, side-to-side action showed no clear difference in plaque score (>3 months) compared with manual toothbrush; GRADE not reported.
2 findings from 1 review
Plaque · Individuals of any age with no reported disability that might affect toothbrushing (including people wearing orthodontic appliances)
Powered toothbrush, ionic action led to lower plaque score (1 to 3 months) compared with manual toothbrush; GRADE not reported.
2 findings from 1 review
Gingivitis · Individuals of any age with no reported disability that might affect toothbrushing (including people wearing orthodontic appliances)
Powered toothbrush, ionic action showed no clear difference in gingivitis score (1 to 3 months) compared with manual toothbrush; GRADE not reported.
2 findings from 1 review
Dependability/reliability (mechanical failure) · Individuals of any age with no reported disability that might affect toothbrushing (including people wearing orthodontic appliances)
1 finding from 1 review
Calculus · Individuals of any age with no reported disability that might affect toothbrushing (including people wearing orthodontic appliances)
1 finding from 1 review
Plaque · Individuals of any age with no reported disability that might affect toothbrushing (including people wearing orthodontic appliances)
Powered toothbrush, rotation oscillation action led to lower plaque score (>3 months) compared with manual toothbrush; GRADE not reported.
2 findings from 1 review
Plaque · Individuals of any age with no reported disability that might affect toothbrushing (including people wearing orthodontic appliances)
Powered toothbrush, counter oscillation action led to lower plaque score (>3 months) compared with manual toothbrush; GRADE not reported.
2 findings from 1 review
Plaque · Individuals of any age with no reported disability that might affect toothbrushing (including people wearing orthodontic appliances)
Powered toothbrush, circular action showed no clear difference in plaque score (1 to 3 months) compared with manual toothbrush; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Staining · Individuals of any age with no reported disability that might affect toothbrushing (including people wearing orthodontic appliances)
1 finding from 1 review
Gingivitis · Individuals of any age with no reported disability that might affect toothbrushing (including people wearing orthodontic appliances)
Powered toothbrush, side-to-side action showed no clear difference in gingivitis score (>3 months) compared with manual toothbrush; GRADE not reported.
2 findings from 1 review
Gingivitis · Individuals of any age with no reported disability that might affect toothbrushing (including people wearing orthodontic appliances)
Powered toothbrush, ultrasonic action led to lower gingivitis score (1 to 3 months) compared with manual toothbrush; GRADE not reported.
2 findings from 1 review
Powered versus manual toothbrushing for oral health 2014 · Cochrane All outcomesShort term (1 to 3 months)
SMD -0.99 [-1.21, -0.76]
5 studies · 354 participants
GRADE not reported
Ultrasonic vs manual, gingivitis at >3 months: one trial (Terezhalmy 1995a); no statistically significant difference; totals not selected (no pooled estimate presented in this version).
1 study · 46 participants
GRADE not reported
Gingivitis · Individuals of any age with no reported disability that might affect toothbrushing (including people wearing orthodontic appliances)
2 findings from 1 review
Unknown/other action vs manual, gingivitis at >3 months: 1 trial; totals not selected.
1 study
GRADE not reported
Powered versus manual toothbrushing for oral health 2014 · Cochrane All outcomesShort term (1 to 3 months)
Unknown/other action vs manual, gingivitis at 1 to 3 months: 3 trials; totals not selected (data presented in forest plots but not pooled).
3 studies
GRADE not reported
Gingivitis · Individuals of any age with no reported disability that might affect toothbrushing (including people wearing orthodontic appliances)
Powered toothbrush, counter oscillation action showed no clear difference in gingivitis score (1 to 3 months) compared with manual toothbrush; GRADE not reported.
2 findings from 1 review
Gingivitis · Individuals of any age with no reported disability that might affect toothbrushing (including people wearing orthodontic appliances)
Powered toothbrush (any mode of action) probably leads to lower gingivitis score (1 to 3 months) compared with manual toothbrush (moderate certainty).
2 findings from 1 review