IADR Abstract Archives
Blinded Clinical Evaluation of a New Toothbrush Design
Objectives: OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this single-blind, crossover study was to compare plaque removal associated with a new manual toothbrush, the O’Nano™ (test) and a best-selling commercially available manual toothbrush, the Oral-B 40® (control). The test toothbrush has a patented “one-piece molded design” made of Thermal Plastic Urethane, a plastic that has been used in medical devices.
Methods: METHODS: Over a 5-week period, 40 subjects participated. Following random assignment, 22 subjects started with test brush and the remaining started with control brush. Crossover occurred after 2-weeks’ use of each brush (1-week washout in between). Plaque was scored before and after brushing using Turesky modification of the Quigley-Hein Index (T/Q-H).
Results: RESULTS: Groups were virtually identical at onset. In comparison to baseline, both brushes achieved significant (p<0.001) plaque reductions (gains) with paired-comparison t-test. Test brush gain was 0.445 (18%) per subject and control brush gain was 0.504 (20%) per subject. The difference in plaque removal capability between brushes averaged 0.060 in favor of control brush, a non-significant (p=0.20) finding determined by a matched paired-comparison t-test which is identical to the repeated measures ANOVA when there are two groups and two time periods. Standard deviation (SD) was smaller for test brush than for control brush in plaque reduction scores (0.183<0.235). This difference was tested and found non-significant.
Conclusions: CONCLUSION: Statistical analyses of T/Q-H scores demonstrated that test brush was just as effective as control brush. With the smaller SD, one could be (non-significantly) more confident that test brush will reduce more plaque on average than control brush even while control brush has on average a (non-significant) greater gain score. The implication here is that test brush may be easier for anyone to use while control brush works very well for some and not so well for others. This study was supported by O’Nano Oral Solutions, Inc.
Methods: METHODS: Over a 5-week period, 40 subjects participated. Following random assignment, 22 subjects started with test brush and the remaining started with control brush. Crossover occurred after 2-weeks’ use of each brush (1-week washout in between). Plaque was scored before and after brushing using Turesky modification of the Quigley-Hein Index (T/Q-H).
Results: RESULTS: Groups were virtually identical at onset. In comparison to baseline, both brushes achieved significant (p<0.001) plaque reductions (gains) with paired-comparison t-test. Test brush gain was 0.445 (18%) per subject and control brush gain was 0.504 (20%) per subject. The difference in plaque removal capability between brushes averaged 0.060 in favor of control brush, a non-significant (p=0.20) finding determined by a matched paired-comparison t-test which is identical to the repeated measures ANOVA when there are two groups and two time periods. Standard deviation (SD) was smaller for test brush than for control brush in plaque reduction scores (0.183<0.235). This difference was tested and found non-significant.
Conclusions: CONCLUSION: Statistical analyses of T/Q-H scores demonstrated that test brush was just as effective as control brush. With the smaller SD, one could be (non-significantly) more confident that test brush will reduce more plaque on average than control brush even while control brush has on average a (non-significant) greater gain score. The implication here is that test brush may be easier for anyone to use while control brush works very well for some and not so well for others. This study was supported by O’Nano Oral Solutions, Inc.
IMAGES
2088312_File000000.jpg
2088312_File000000.jpg