Title
Author
DOI
Article Type
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Plaque removal efficacy of an innovative U-shaped power toothbrush: a pilot study
1SLS Clinical Research Consulting, LLC, Warrington, PA 18976, USA
2Clinical Operations, Salus Research, Inc., Fort Wayne, IN 46825, USA
3Reinhard Schuller Consulting, Toronto, ON M9A 5A1, Canada
4Lander Enterprises, LLC dba Autobrush, Miami, FL 33137, USA
DOI: 10.22514/jocpd.2025.132 Vol.49,Issue 6,November 2025 pp.111-119
Submitted: 24 January 2025 Accepted: 16 May 2025
Published: 03 November 2025
*Corresponding Author(s): Sylvia L. Santos E-mail: sersantos2024@outlook.com
† These authors contributed equally.
Background: This study evaluated the plaque removal efficacy of a novel U-shaped sonic power toothbrush compared to a manual soft toothbrush. Methods: Twenty-two children (aged 5–8 years) participated in an examiner-blinded, two-period crossover trial. Each child used a standard soft manual toothbrush (for 2 minutes) and the U-shaped AutoBrush® device (for 30 seconds) in random sequence, with each use separated by a two-day at-home washout period. Before each brushing, dental plaque was disclosed and scored using the Lobene-Soparkar Modification of the Turesky–Quigley-Hein Plaque Index. After 12–16 hours of no oral hygiene, baseline plaque levels were recorded, followed by supervised brushing with the assigned toothbrush and a post-brushing plaque assessment. Plaque reduction (whole-mouth and hard-to-reach sites) was analyzed by baseline-adjusted Analysis of Covariance (ANCOVA). Results: All 22 participants (13 males, 9 females), average age of 6.5 years (±1.1), completed both study periods with no product-related adverse events; both toothbrushes were well tolerated. Both the manual and U-shaped toothbrush significantly reduced plaque from baseline on a whole-mouth level (p < 0.001). However, the manual toothbrush showed minimal plaque reduction at certain areas (e.g., proximal and lingual surfaces), whereas the U-shaped toothbrush achieved substantial plaque removal across all regions. The U-shaped toothbrush yielded significantly greater mean plaque reductions than the manual brush for whole mouth, (all facial and lingual tooth surfaces), (50.6%), gumline (71.2%), proximal (40.7%) and other difficult-to-clean sites (p < 0.001). Conclusions: A 30-second brushing with the U-shaped sonic toothbrush was significantly more effective at removing plaque in children than a 2-minute brushing with a standard manual toothbrush, including at hard-to-reach sites. These findings suggest that the innovative U-shaped powered toothbrush may help improve oral hygiene efficiency for young children. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT06300073, https://classic.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT06300073.
Toothbrushing; Child; Dental devices; Home care; Oral hygiene; Cross-over studies; Dental plaque; Mouth
Sylvia L. Santos,Kimberly R. Milleman,Abigale L. Yoder,Kaylie S. Wills,Tori L. York,Reinhard Schuller,Chris Lander,Jeffery L. Milleman. Plaque removal efficacy of an innovative U-shaped power toothbrush: a pilot study. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2025. 49(6);111-119.
[1] Chen KJ, Gao SS, Duangthip D, Lo ECM, Chu CH. Prevalence of early childhood caries among 5‐year‐old children: a systematic review. Journal of Investigative and Clinical Dentistry. 2019; 10: e12376.
[2] Han SY, Chang CL, Wang YL, Wang CS, Lee WJ, Vo TTT, et al. A narrative review on advancing pediatric oral health: comprehensive strategies for the prevention and management of dental challenges in children. Children. 2025; 12: 286.
[3] Khan IM, Mani SA, Doss JG, Danaee M, Kong LYL. Pre-schoolers’ tooth brushing behaviour and association with their oral health: a cross sectional study. BMC Oral Health. 2021; 21: 283.
[4] Huang G, Cao G, Liu J, Liu M. Global trends in incidence of caries in permanent teeth of children aged 5 through 14 years, 1990 through 2019. The Journal of the American Dental Association. 2024; 155: 667–678.e21.
[5] Glenny A, Walsh T, Iwasaki M, Kateeb E, Braga MM, Riley P, et al. Development of tooth brushing recommendations through professional consensus. International Dental Journal. 2024; 74: 526–535.
[6] Wainwright J, Sheiham A. An analysis of methods of toothbrushing recommended by dental associations, toothpaste and toothbrush companies and in dental texts. British Dental Journal. 2014; 217: E5.
[7] Matalon V, Levin L, Yagudaev M, Ashkenazi M. Factors associated with toothbrushing performance among children: an observational cohort study. International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry. 2025; 35: 405–413.
[8] Collett BR, Huebner CE, Seminario AL, Wallace E, Gray KE, Speltz ML. Observed child and parent toothbrushing behaviors and child oral health. International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry. 2016; 26: 184–192.
[9] Mentes A, Atukeren J. A study of manual toothbrushing skills in children aged 3 to 11 years. Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2003; 27: 91–94.
[10] Ashkenazi M, Bidoosi M, Levin L. Factors associated with reduced compliance of children to dental preventive measures. Odontology. 2012; 100: 241–248.
[11] Ng C, Tsoi JKH, Lo ECM, Matinlinna AJP. Safety and design aspects of powered toothbrush—a narrative review. Dentistry Journal. 2020; 8: 15.
[12] Yaacob M, Worthington HV, Deacon SA, Deery C, Walmsley AD, Robinson PG, et al. Powered versus manual toothbrushing for oral health. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2014; 2014: CD002281.
[13] 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.
[14] 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.
[15] Nieri M, Giuntini V, Pagliaro U, Giani M, Franchi L, Franceschi D. Efficacy of a U-shaped automatic electric toothbrush in dental plaque removal: a cross-over randomized controlled trial. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020; 17: 4649.
[16] Schnabl D, Wiesmüller V, Hönlinger V, Wimmer S, Bruckmoser E, Kapferer-Seebacher I. Cleansing efficacy of an auto-cleaning electronic toothbrushing device: a randomized-controlled crossover pilot study. Clinical Oral Investigations. 2021; 25: 247–253.
[17] Keller M, Keller G, Eller T, Sigwart L, Wiesmüller V, Steiner R, et al. Cleansing efficacy of an auto-cleaning toothbrushing device with nylon bristles: a randomized-controlled pilot study. Clinical Oral Investigations. 2023; 27: 603–611.
[18] Statie MD, Lomonaco I, Nieri M, Giuntini V, Franceschi D, Franchi L. Efficacy of an automatic electric toothbrush with nylon bristles in dental plaque removal: a cross-over randomized controlled trial. Clinical Oral Investigations. 2024; 28: 211.
[19] Palubicka J, Wagner A, Cohen B, Cadot C. A randomized comparative clinical study evaluating the efficacy of a new automatic toothbrush versus to a sonic toothbrush. Journal of Dentistry and Oral Health. 2025; 12: 1–10.
[20] Turesky S, Gilmore ND, Glickman I. Reduced plaque formation by the chloromethyl analogue of victamine C. Journal of Periodontology. 1970; 41: 41–43.
[21] Lobene RR, Soparkar PM, Newman MB. Use of dental floss. Effect on plaque and gingivitis. Clinical Preventive Dentistry. 1982; 4: 5–8.
[22] Lim C, In J. Considerations for crossover design in clinical study. Korean Journal of Anesthesiology. 2021; 74: 293–299.
[23] Davidovich E, Ccahuana‐Vasquez RA, Timm H, Grender J, Cunningham P, Zini A. Randomised clinical study of plaque removal efficacy of a power toothbrush in a paediatric population. International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry. 2017; 27: 558–567.
[24] Erbe C, Klees V, Ferrari-Peron P, Ccahuana-Vasquez RA, Timm H, Grender J, et al. A comparative assessment of plaque removal and toothbrushing compliance between a manual and an interactive power toothbrush among adolescents: a single-center, single-blind randomized controlled trial. BMC Oral Health. 2018; 18: 130.
[25] Davidovich E, Ccahuana‐Vasquez RA, Timm H, Grender J, Zini A. Randomised clinical study of plaque removal efficacy of an electric toothbrush in primary and mixed dentition. International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry. 2021; 31: 657–663.
[26] Slot D, Wiggelinkhuizen L, Rosema N, Van der Weijden G. The efficacy of manual toothbrushes following a brushing exercise: a systematic review. International Journal of Dental Hygiene. 2012; 10: 187–197.
[27] Rustogi KN, Curtis JP, Volpe AR, Kemp JH, McCool JJ, Korn LR. Refinement of the modified navy plaque index to increase plaque scoring efficiency in gumline and interproximal tooth areas. The Journal of Clinical Dentistry. 1992; 3: C9–C12.
[28] Francis M, Hooper WJ, Worob D, Huy G, Santos S, Goyal CR, et al. Comparative plaque removal efficacy of a new children’s powered toothbrush and a manual toothbrush: randomized, single use clinical study. American Journal of Dentistry. 2021; 34: 338–344.
[29] Ghassemi A, Vorwerk L, Hooper W, Patel V, Sharma N, Qaqish J. Comparative plaque removal efficacy of a new children’s powered toothbrush and a manual toothbrush. The Journal of Clinical Dentistry. 2013; 24: 1–4.
[30] Vorwerk L, Ghassemi A, Hooper W, Patel V, Milleman J, Milleman K. Comparative plaque removal efficacy of a new powered toothbrush and a manual toothbrush. The Journal of Clinical Dentistry. 2016; 27: 76–79.
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 2.3 (2024) 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.
Top