IADR Abstract Archives
In Vitro Access Efficacy of Battery-Operated Sonic Toothbrush in Interproximal Space, Along Gingival Margin, and Around Orthodontic Brackets
Objectives: Evaluate interproximal, gingival margin and around bracket access efficacies of the GUM® ActiVITAL™ Sonic Deep Clean Battery Toothbrush compared to commercially available Sonicare® 3-Series, and Oral-B® Pro-Health Pulsar, Spinbrush™ Proclean™ Oral-B® Pro 3000 rotation-oscillation with an Orthodontic Head, and GUM Orthodontic manual toothbrushes.
Methods: Toothbrushing was performed on an orthodontic tooth model simulating anterior and posterior tooth shapes with glued-on orthodontic wired brackets. Commercially available aerosol powder was hand-sprayed on the model to simulate plaque coverage on tooth surfaces. Teeth were brushed dry with horizontal, 50-millimeter strokes for 30 cycles, 90 degrees brushing angle and 250-gram brushing force. Access efficacy was defined as percentage of the area that the powder was removed to the total area. Area around brackets was defined as a rectangle covering the tooth width, 2.6mm above and 0.5mm below the bracket. Interproximal area was defined as a combined area of 4mm-rectangular strips along interproximal spaces, 1mm wide, on both sides of tooth. Area along the gingival margin was an arc with 1mm width. The mean efficacies of 16 measurements were calculated and analyzed using ANOVA and Tukey’s test at 95% confidence level.
Results: Interproximal access efficacy of the GUM sonic toothbrush was significantly higher than the other tested toothbrushes. Access along the gingival margin was significantly higher than the other tested toothbrushes except for the manual toothbrush. Access efficacy around brackets was significantly higher than other tested toothbrushes except for Oral-B Pulsar. Overall access efficacy was comparable to the manual toothbrush and significantly higher than the other tested toothbrushes.
Conclusions: The GUM sonic toothbrush design allows for optimal access to difficult-to-reach areas. Its overall access efficacy was superior to all other power brushes tested. Moreover, results showed that, in reaching around brackets, it was superior to an orthodontic-specific manual toothbrush.
Methods: Toothbrushing was performed on an orthodontic tooth model simulating anterior and posterior tooth shapes with glued-on orthodontic wired brackets. Commercially available aerosol powder was hand-sprayed on the model to simulate plaque coverage on tooth surfaces. Teeth were brushed dry with horizontal, 50-millimeter strokes for 30 cycles, 90 degrees brushing angle and 250-gram brushing force. Access efficacy was defined as percentage of the area that the powder was removed to the total area. Area around brackets was defined as a rectangle covering the tooth width, 2.6mm above and 0.5mm below the bracket. Interproximal area was defined as a combined area of 4mm-rectangular strips along interproximal spaces, 1mm wide, on both sides of tooth. Area along the gingival margin was an arc with 1mm width. The mean efficacies of 16 measurements were calculated and analyzed using ANOVA and Tukey’s test at 95% confidence level.
Results: Interproximal access efficacy of the GUM sonic toothbrush was significantly higher than the other tested toothbrushes. Access along the gingival margin was significantly higher than the other tested toothbrushes except for the manual toothbrush. Access efficacy around brackets was significantly higher than other tested toothbrushes except for Oral-B Pulsar. Overall access efficacy was comparable to the manual toothbrush and significantly higher than the other tested toothbrushes.
Conclusions: The GUM sonic toothbrush design allows for optimal access to difficult-to-reach areas. Its overall access efficacy was superior to all other power brushes tested. Moreover, results showed that, in reaching around brackets, it was superior to an orthodontic-specific manual toothbrush.