Article Data

  • Views 357
  • Dowloads 126

Original Research

Open Access

Efficacy of manual, musical and electric toothbrushes in plaque removal in children—a randomized clinical trial

  • Alzarea K. Bader1,*,
  • Rakhi Issrani2,*,
  • Ahmed Shawkat Hashem3
  • Shahad Mohammed Mlih Alruwaili2
  • Shaliputra Magar4
  • Namdeo Prabhu4

1Department of Prosthetic Dental Sciences, College of Dentistry, Jouf University, 72388 Sakaka, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

2Department of Preventive Dentistry, College of Dentistry, Jouf University, 72388 Sakaka, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

3Department of Oral Medicine and Periodontology, Faculty of Dentistry, Damanhour University, 22511 Damanhour, Egypt

4Department of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery & Diagnostic Sciences, Jouf University, 72388 Sakaka, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia

DOI: 10.22514/jocpd.2025.050 Vol.49,Issue 3,May 2025 pp.54-63

Submitted: 01 July 2024 Accepted: 26 November 2024

Published: 03 May 2025

*Corresponding Author(s): Alzarea K. Bader E-mail: bkzarea@ju.edu.sa
*Corresponding Author(s): Rakhi Issrani E-mail: dr.rakhi.issrani@jodent.org

Abstract

Background: Tooth brushing is essential for oral hygiene in children, promoting plaque removal and preventing periodontal diseases. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of manual, musical and electric toothbrushes in removing supragingival plaque in children aged 6–12 years. Methods: A single-blind, randomized study enrolled 111 children aged 6–12 years who met the inclusion criteria. Participants were randomly assigned to three groups: group 1 (manual toothbrush), group 2 (musical toothbrush) and group 3 (electric toothbrush). They were instructed to brush their teeth twice daily for 2 minutes over a 45-day period. Plaque levels were assessed using the Quigley-Hein plaque index (PI) at baseline (day 0) and after 15, 30 and 45 days following 24 hours of no oral hygiene. At each visit, plaque removal was evaluated using a disclosing solution before and after supervised brushing. Statistical analyses included one-way Analysis of variance formula and paired t-tests to compare plaque scores within and between groups. Results: Intragroup comparisons showed significant plaque reduction from pre- to post-brushing at all time points for all groups, except group 3 on day 45, where the reduction was not statistically significant (p = 0.083). Intergroup analyses indicated variations in plaque removal efficacy, with electric and musical toothbrushes generally demonstrating greater plaque removal than manual toothbrushes, particularly at earlier follow-up visits. However, some differences were not statistically significant. Conclusions: Musical and electric toothbrushes were more effective than manual toothbrushes in reducing plaque in children aged 6–12 years. These findings support the use of interactive toothbrushes as effective tools for improving pediatric oral hygiene. Further research is needed to control for dietary habits and brushing adherence. Clinical Trial Registration: This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov in the United States (Reference No: NCT06541743).


Keywords

Children; Oral health; Toothbrushing; Dental plaque


Cite and Share

Alzarea K. Bader,Rakhi Issrani,Ahmed Shawkat Hashem,Shahad Mohammed Mlih Alruwaili,Shaliputra Magar,Namdeo Prabhu. Efficacy of manual, musical and electric toothbrushes in plaque removal in children—a randomized clinical trial. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2025. 49(3);54-63.

References

[1] Kitsaras G, Goodwin M, Kelly MP, Pretty IA. Bedtime oral hygiene behaviours, dietary habits and children’s dental health. Children. 2021; 8: 416.

[2] Axe A, Mueller WD, Rafferty H, Lang T, Gaengler P. Impact of manual toothbrush design on plaque removal efficacy. BMC Oral Health. 2023; 23: 796.

[3] Feres M, Gursky LC, Faveri M, Tsuzuki CO, Figueiredo LC. Clinical and microbiological benefits of strict supragingival plaque control as part of the active phase of periodontal therapy. Journal of Clinical Periodontology. 2009; 36: 857–867.

[4] Mateu FA, Boneta AE, DeVizio W, Stewart B, Proskin HM. A clinical investigation of the efficacy of two dentifrices for controlling established supragingival plaque and gingivitis. The Journal of Clinical Dentistry. 2008; 19: 85–94.

[5] Liu L. The impact of innovation of electric toothbrush. Proceedings of the 2022 7th International Conference on Financial Innovation and Economic Development (ICFIED 2022). 14–16 January 2022. Atlantis Press International B.V.: Dordrecht. 2022.

[6] Prendergast V, Chapple KM. Evaluation and acceptance of an electric toothbrush designed for dependent patients. Cureus. 2021; 13: e15372.

[7] Lee J, Park HM, Kim YW. Comparative analysis of plaque removal and wear between electric-mechanical and bioelectric toothbrushes. Bioengineering. 2024; 11: 474.

[8] Vargas CM, Arevalo O. How dental care can preserve and improve oral health. Dental Clinics of North America. 2009; 53: 399–420.

[9] Ganesh M, Shah S, Parikh D, Choudhary P, Bhaskar V. The effectiveness of a musical toothbrush for dental plaque removal: a comparative study. Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry. 2012; 30: 139–145.

[10] Pillay R, Mathur A, Jain M, Singh A, Gupta V. Comparative efficacy of musical and manual toothbrush in children. International Journal of Current Research and Review. 2021; 13: 142–147.

[11] Subburaman N, Madan Kumar PD, Iyer K. Effectiveness of musical toothbrush on oral debris and gingival bleeding among 6–10-year-old children: a randomized controlled trial. Indian Journal of Dental Research. 2019; 30: 196–199.

[12] Haffajee AD, Thompson M, Torresyap G, Guerrero D, Socransky SS. Efficacy of manual and powered toothbrushes (I). Effect on clinical parameters. Journal of Clinical Periodontology. 2001; 28: 937–946.

[13] Frankl SN, Shiere FR, Fogels HR. Should the parent remain with the child in the dental operatory? Journal of Dentistry for Children. 1962; 29: 150–163.

[14] Forssten SD, Björklund M, Ouwehand AC. Streptococcus mutans, caries and simulation models. Nutrients. 2010; 2: 290–298.

[15] Quigley GA, Hein JW. Comparative cleansing efficiency of manual and power brushing. The Journal of the American Dental Association. 1962; 65: 26–29.

[16] Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D; CONSORT Group. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. The BMJ. 2010; 340: c332.

[17] Claydon N, Addy M. Comparative single-use plaque removal by toothbrushes of different designs. Journal of Clinical Periodontology. 1996; 23: 1112–1126.

[18] Sharma NC, Goyal CR, Qaqish JG, Cugini MA, Thompson MC, Warren PR. Single-use plaque removal efficacy of three power toothbrushes. Journal of Dentistry. 2005; 33: 11–15.

[19] Sharma NC, Qaqish JG, Galustians HJ, Goyal CR, Cugini MA, Thompson MC, et al. Plaque removal efficacy of two electric toothbrushes with different brush head designs. Journal of Dentistry. 2005; 33: 17–21.

[20] Silverstone LM, Tilliss TS, Cross-Poline GN, Van der Linden E, Stach DJ, Featherstone MJ. A six-week study comparing the efficacy of a rotary electric toothbrush with a conventional toothbrush. Clinical Preventive Dentistry. 1992; 14: 29–34.

[21] Tritten CB, Armitage GC. Comparison of a sonic and a manual toothbrush for efficacy in supragingival plaque removal and reduction of gingivitis. Journal of Clinical Periodontology. 1996; 23: 641–648.

[22] Van der Weijden GA, Timmerman MF, Reijerse E, Mantel MS, Van der Velden U. The effectiveness of an electronic toothbrush in the removal of established plaque and treatment of gingivitis. Journal of Clinical Periodontology. 1995; 22: 179–182.

[23] Sripriya N, Shaik Hyder Ali KH. A comparative study of the efficacy of four different bristle designs of tooth brushes in plaque removal. Journal of Indian Society of Pedodontics and Preventive Dentistry. 2007; 25: 76–81.

[24] Ainamo J, Xie Q, Ainamo A, Kallio P. Assessment of the effect of an oscillating/rotating electric toothbrush on oral health. A 12-month longitudinal study. Journal of Clinical Periodontology. 1997; 24: 28–33.

[25] Chua DR, Hu S, Sim YF, Lim W, Lai BWP, Hong CHL. At what age do children have the motor development to adequately brush their teeth? International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry. 2022; 32: 598–606.

[26] Pujar P, Subbareddy VV. Evaluation of the tooth brushing skills in children aged 6–12 years. European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry. 2013; 14: 213–219.

[27] American Academy on Pediatric Dentistry Clinical Affairs Committee-Behavior Management Subcommittee; American Academy on Pediatric Dentistry Council on Clinical Affairs. Guideline on behavior guidance for the pediatric dental patient. Pediatric Dentistry. 2008; 30: 125–133.

[28] Duijster D, de Jong-Lenters M, Verrips E, van Loveren C. Establishing oral health promoting behaviours in children—parents’ views on barriers, facilitators and professional support: a qualitative study. BMC Oral Health. 2015; 15: 157.

[29] Damle SG, Patil A, Jain S, Damle D, Chopal N. Effectiveness of supervised toothbrushing and oral health education in improving oral hygiene status and practices of urban and rural school children: a comparative study. Journal of International Society of Preventive and Community Dentistry. 2014; 4: 175–181.

[30] Thomassen TMJA, Van der Weijden FGA, Slot DE. The efficacy of powered toothbrushes: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. International Journal of Dental Hygiene. 2022; 20: 3–17.

[31] Kudirkaite I, Lopatiene K, Zubiene J, Saldunaite K. Age and gender influence on oral hygiene among adolescents with fixed orthodontic appliances. Stomatologija. 2016; 18: 61–65.

[32] Gambhir N, Rehani U, Agarwal A, Sharma S. To study the relationship of oral hygiene and gingivitis with the influence of tooth brushing habits in children of Meerut district. Journal of Evolution of Medical and Dental Sciences. 2012; 1: 1076–1080.

[33] Prusty AK, Sharma S, Malhotra S. Comparative efficacy of different varieties of toothbrushes in plaque control: a 12-week clinical trial. Indian Journal of Dental Research. 2021; 32: 372–379.

[34] Aggarwal N, Gupta S, Grover R, Sadana G, Bansal K. Plaque removal efficacy of different toothbrushes: a comparative study. International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2019; 12: 385–390.

[35] Deeg I, Wicht MJ, Barbe AG, Derman SHM. Self-determined use of provided powered oral hygiene devices leads to improved gingival health after 1 year: a longitudinal clinical trial. BMC Oral Health. 2024; 24: 566.

[36] Zou Y, Grender J, Adam R, Levin L. A meta-analysis comparing toothbrush technologies on gingivitis and plaque. International Dental Journal. 2024; 74: 146–156.

[37] Ash MM. A review of the problems and results of studies on manual and power toothbrushes. Journal of Periodontology. 1964; 35: 202–213.

[38] Davidovich E, Shafir S, Shay B, Zini A. Plaque removal by a powered toothbrush versus a manual toothbrush in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Pediatric Dentistry. 2020; 42: 280–287.

[39] Ying Y, Nicolau B. Oscillating-rotating electric toothbrushes may have a better effect on gingivitis and plaque control than sonic and manual toothbrushes in adults. Journal of Evidence-Based Dental Practice. 2021; 21: 101575.

[40] Graves A, Grahl T, Keiserman M, Kingsley K. Systematic review and meta analysis of the relative effect on plaque index among pediatric patients using powered (electric) versus manual toothbrushes. Dentistry Journal. 2023; 11: 46.

[41] Ng C, Tsoi JKH, Lo ECM, Matinlinna JP. Safety and design aspects of powered toothbrush—a narrative review. Dentistry Journal. 2020; 8: 15.

[42] Penick C. Power toothbrushes: a critical review. International Journal of Dental Hygiene. 2004; 2: 40–44.

[43] Bratel J, Berggren U. Long-term oral effects of manual or electric toothbrushes used by mentally handicapped adults. Clinical Preventive Dentistry. 1991; 13: 5–7.

[44] Schifter CC, Emling RC, Seibert JS, Yankell SL. A comparison of plaque removal effectiveness of an electric versus a manual toothbrush. Clinical Preventive Dentistry. 1983; 5: 15–19.

[45] Shaw L, Harris BM, Maclaurin ET, Foster TD. Oral hygiene in handicapped children: a comparison of effectiveness in the unaided use of manual and electric toothbrushes. Dent Health. 1983; 22: 4–5.

[46] Heanue M, Deacon SA, Deery C, Robinson PG, Walmsley AD, Worthington HV, et al. Manual versus powered toothbrushing for oral health. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2003; CD002281.

[47] Deacon SA, Glenny AM, Deery C, Robinson PG, Heanue M, Walmsley AD, et al. Different powered toothbrushes for plaque control and gingival health. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2010; 2010: CD004971.


Abstracted / indexed in

Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch) Created as SCI in 1964, Science Citation Index Expanded now indexes over 9,500 of the world’s most impactful journals across 178 scientific disciplines. More than 53 million records and 1.18 billion cited references date back from 1900 to present.

Biological Abstracts Easily discover critical journal coverage of the life sciences with Biological Abstracts, produced by the Web of Science Group, with topics ranging from botany to microbiology to pharmacology. Including BIOSIS indexing and MeSH terms, specialized indexing in Biological Abstracts helps you to discover more accurate, context-sensitive results.

Google Scholar Google Scholar is a freely accessible web search engine that indexes the full text or metadata of scholarly literature across an array of publishing formats and disciplines.

JournalSeek Genamics JournalSeek is the largest completely categorized database of freely available journal information available on the internet. The database presently contains 39226 titles. Journal information includes the description (aims and scope), journal abbreviation, journal homepage link, subject category and ISSN.

Current Contents - Clinical Medicine Current Contents - Clinical Medicine provides easy access to complete tables of contents, abstracts, bibliographic information and all other significant items in recently published issues from over 1,000 leading journals in clinical medicine.

BIOSIS Previews BIOSIS Previews is an English-language, bibliographic database service, with abstracts and citation indexing. It is part of Clarivate Analytics Web of Science suite. BIOSIS Previews indexes data from 1926 to the present.

Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition Journal Citation Reports/Science Edition aims to evaluate a journal’s value from multiple perspectives including the journal impact factor, descriptive data about a journal’s open access content as well as contributing authors, and provide readers a transparent and publisher-neutral data & statistics information about the journal.

Scopus: CiteScore 1.8 (2023) Scopus is Elsevier's abstract and citation database launched in 2004. Scopus covers nearly 36,377 titles (22,794 active titles and 13,583 Inactive titles) from approximately 11,678 publishers, of which 34,346 are peer-reviewed journals in top-level subject fields: life sciences, social sciences, physical sciences and health sciences.

Submission Turnaround Time

Top