Cochrane · intervention · CD002281

Powered versus manual toothbrushing for oral health

Yaacob, M, Worthington, HV, Deacon, SA, et al. · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2014 · Cochrane Library

Oral Health Periodontology3 versionsAMSTAR 2: not assessed

Full textEvery question was extracted from the full review (methods and results), not only its Summary of Findings table.

Questions

current version

GRADE rated

No studies

Included studies

as reported

No studies 1 · 2.9%Ungraded 29 · 85.3%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 4 · 11.8%High 0 · 0%

Ungraded means an effect was reported without a GRADE rating; it is not a gap. No studies means the review found nothing to answer the question. The six categories are a display order, not a score.

Review question

Element	Planned (methods)	Found (results)
Population	Individuals of any age with no reported disability that might affect toothbrushing were included. Individuals wearing orthodontic appliances were also included.	Combined total number of participants included in the trials was 5068. The number of patients reported lost to follow up was 334 (6.6%). 36 trials were conducted in North America, 18 in Europe, one in Israel and one in India. At least 37 were funded in some part by the manufacturer of one of the powered toothbrushes.
Intervention	All forms of manual brushes and all forms of powered brushes with a mechanical movement of the brush head. Powered toothbrushes were divided into seven groups according to their mode of action: Side to side action, Counter oscillation, Rotation oscillation, Circular, Ultrasonic, Ionic, Unknown.	Side to side action (n=988); Counter oscillation (n=267); Rotation oscillation (n=2159); Circular (n=162); Ultrasonic (n=506); Unknown action (n=1130); Ionic (n=221)
Comparison	Manual toothbrushes	Manual toothbrushes (n=5068)
Outcomes	Primary outcome measures: quantified levels of plaque and/or gingivitis. Secondary outcome measures: levels of calculus and staining; dependability and cost of the brush used, including mechanical deterioration; and adverse effects such as hard or soft tissue injury and damage to orthodontic appliances and prostheses.	Plaque scores at 1 to 3 months (n=2871); Gingivitis at 1 to 3 months (n=3345); Plaque scores at > 3 months (n=978); Gingivitis at > 3 months (n=1645); Calculus (n=3 trials); Staining (n=3 trials); Soft tissue trauma (n=40 trials); Mechanical failure (n=2 trials)
Study designs	Randomised controlled trials comparing manual and powered toothbrushes. Cross-over trials were eligible if the wash-out period was more than two weeks. Split mouth trials were excluded.	NR
Timing	Trials of 28 days and over were eligible. Short term data includes follow up between 28 days and 3 months. Long term data includes follow up beyond 3 months.	Short term trials: 1 to 3 months follow up; Long term trials: greater than 3 months follow up

Search date: 2014-01-23. Databases: Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register; CENTRAL; MEDLINE; EMBASE; CINAHL