Methods: This Cochrane Systematic Review searched the following databases for randomised controlled trials, irrespective of language: Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials register; Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (The Cochrane Library, issue 1, 2009); MEDLINE (1966 to March 2009); EMBASE (1980 to March 2009); CINAHL (1982 to March 2009); Web of Science (1945 to March 2009). Criteria for the inclusion of trials were: random allocation of participants; no compromised manual dexterity; unsupervised powered tooth brushing for at least 4 weeks. The primary outcomes were the plaque and gingivitis scores after powered toothbrush use during trial period. Data were extracted independently and in duplicate. The authors of trials were contacted to provide missing data where possible. The effect measure for each meta-analysis was the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) using the random effects model. Potential sources of heterogeneity and risk of bias were assessed.
Results: The review included data from 15 trials with 1015 participants. As there were so few trials assessing any one mode of action, no definitive conclusions can be stated regarding the superiority of one mode of powered toothbrush. Only minor and transient side effects were reported. Cost and dependability were not reported.
Conclusions: Whilst powered rotation oscillation brushes have been shown to be more effective at reducing plaque and gingivitis when compared to manual brushing, further good quality trials are required to establish if any mode of action has superiority over the other modes of action for powered toothbrushes.