Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
, 19 (1), 58

Efficiency of Chewable Toothbrush in Reduction of Dental Plaque in Students

Affiliations

Efficiency of Chewable Toothbrush in Reduction of Dental Plaque in Students

Rasa Mladenovic et al. BMC Oral Health.

Abstract

Background: Besides classical and electrical toothbrushes market offers tooth brushes that can be chewed, like chewing gums. The aim of this study was to show the effectiveness of chewable toothbrush versus a conventional brush in the students' population.

Methods: The prospective study included 346 students. For this research, we used a e-questionnaire for "smart" phones, that students completed outside the dental office. Respondents are divided into two groups: control group used conventional toothbrushes, respondents from the tested group used chewable toothbrush. For assessment of accumulation of the plaque we used TQHI index. For testing statistical hypotheses, the following were used: t-test for two independent samples and analysis of the variance of repeated measurements.

Results: Before brushing teeth, the average TQHI value for chewable brushes is 2.8 ± 0.3, while conventional is 2.7 ± 0.3, which is not a statistically significant difference (p = 0.448). After brushing teeth, the average TQHI value for chewable brushes is 2.0 ± 0.1, while conventional 2.0 ± 0.3, which is also not statistically significant (p = 0.729). Observing the index of the plaque values on the tooth surfaces in the upper jaw, in both groups, there was a statistically significant change in the amount of plaque in time (p < 0.001). There is a statistically significant interaction between groups and changes in the amount of plaque in the observed period (p = 0.013).

Conclusions: The fact that there is no significant difference in the effectiveness of the tested brushes indicates the benefits of using chewable toothbrushes in order to reduce plaque, primarily in the inability to use conventional brushes.

Keywords: Chewable toothbrush; Dental plaque; E-questionnaire; Oral health; Students.

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Commission of the Faculty of Medicine University of Pristina (No 03–2733).

Consent for publication

Written informed consent was obtained from all study participants.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Android application questionnaire ‘Dent.in TEST’ and scoring
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Research protocol
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
“Fuzzy Brush” chewable toothbrush
Fig. 4
Fig. 4
a TQHI score in upper jaw, b lower jaw
Fig. 5
Fig. 5
a TQHI score in front teeth, b lateral teeth
Fig. 6
Fig. 6
a TQHI score of oral surface, b buccal surface
Fig. 7
Fig. 7
TQHI score of all teeth surfaces

Similar articles

See all similar articles

References

    1. Selwitz RH, Ismail AI, Pitts NB. Dental caries. Lancet. 2007;369(9555):51–59. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(07)60031-2. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Matijevic S. Oral hygiene as the dominat determinat of health. Acta Stomatol Naissi. 2013;29(68):1298–1305. doi: 10.5937/asn1368298M. - DOI
    1. Sanders AE, Slade GD, Turrell G, John Spencer A, Marcenes W. The shape of the socioeconomic-oral health gradient: implications for theoretical explanations. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol. 2006;34:310–319. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0528.2006.00286.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Dye BA, Selwitz RH. The relationship between selected measures of periodontal status and demographic and behavioural risk factors. J Clin Periodontol. 2005;32:798–808. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2005.00742.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kumar S, Motwani K, Dak N, Balasubramanyam G, Duraiswamy P, Kulkarni S. Dental health behaviour in relation to caries status among medical and dental undergraduate students of Udaipur district, India. Int J Dent Hyg. 2010;8:86–94. doi: 10.1111/j.1601-5037.2008.00346.x. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources

Feedback