Advertisement

European Archives of Paediatric Dentistry

, Volume 19, Issue 6, pp 417–421 | Cite as

Effectiveness of plaque removal with an experimental chewable brush in children between age 9 and 13 years

  • A. V. Joshi
  • U. B. DixitEmail author
Original Scientific Article
  • 56 Downloads

Abstract

Aim

To evaluate the effectiveness of plaque removal of an experimental chewable brush in comparison with a manual brush in children between age 9 and 13 years.

Method

This single blinded randomised controlled study included a total of 60 healthy children between age 9 and 13 years that fulfilled the selection criteria. Selected children were randomly assigned to manual toothbrush group (MT) and chewable toothbrush group (CT). Children were instructed to use the respective toothbrushes under supervision. Effectiveness of plaque removal was evaluated by recording Turesky’s modification of Quigley–Hein index scores (TMQHI) before and after brushing on single use. Difference in the pre-brushing and post-brushing plaque scores between the groups were statistically compared by using Mann–Whitney U test.

Results

TMQHI plaque scores of selected children for the MT and CT groups was found to be statistically similar before using the toothbrush (p = 0.072). Difference between overall plaque reduction scores were found to be 1.0 for MT and 1.13 for CT, which did not reveal statistical significance (p = 0.308). In order to evaluate efficiency of chewable toothbrush, TMQHI scores for buccal and lingual scores were analysed separately, and found no statistical significance in plaque removal on either surfaces (p = 0.944 for buccal, p = 0.080 for lingual).

Conclusions

Chewable toothbrush was found to be as effective in total plaque removal as manual tooth brushing in the children between age 9 and 13 years. The chewable brush may be an appropriate oral hygiene adjunct for school children spending a considerable amount of time out of home.

Keywords

Chewable brush Plaque removal Manual brush Children 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Bezgin T, Dag C, Ozalp N. How effective is a chewable brush in removing plaque in children? A pilot study. J Pediatr Dent. 2015;3:41–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brown SL, Nobiling BD, Teufel J, et al. Are kids too busy?: early adolescents’ perceptions of discretionary activities, overscheduling, and stress. J Sch Health. 2011;81(9):574–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Casanova-Rosado JF, Vallejos-Sanchez AA, Minaya-Sanchez M, et al. Frequency of tooth brushing and associated factors in mexican schoolchildren six to nine years of age. West Indian Med J. 2013;62(1):68–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Chandki R, Banthia P, Banthia R. Biofilms. A microbial home. J Ind Soc Periodontol. 2011;15(2):111–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Cheng YC, Huang HK, Wu CH, et al. Correlation between dental caries and diet, oral hygiene habits, and other indicators among elementary school students in Xiulin. Tzu Chi Med J. 2014;26:175–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Das UM, Singhal P. Tooth brushing skills for children aged 3–11 years. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent. 2009;27:104–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Flemming HC, Wingender J, Szewzyk U, et al. Biofims: an emergent form of bacterial life. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2016;14:536–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Frazelle MR, Munro CL. Toothbrush contamination: a review of the literature. Nurs Res Pract 2012;2012:1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Govindaraju L, Gurunathan R. Effectiveness of chewable tooth brush in children—a prospective clinical study. J Clin Diag Res. 2017;11(3):ZC31–4.Google Scholar
  10. Makinen KK. Xylitol based caries prevention: is there enough evidence for existence of a specific xylitol effect? Oral Dis. 2008;4(4):226–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Marsh PD. Dental plaque as a biofilm and microbial community- implications for health and disease. BMC Oral Health. 2006;6:14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Martignon S, Gonzalez MC, Tellez M, et al. Schoolchildren’s tooth brushing characteristics and oral hygiene habits assessed with video-recorded sessions at school and a questionnaire. Acta Odontol Latinoam. 2012;25:163–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Mentes A, Atukeren J. A study of manual tooth brushing skills in children aged 3–11 years. J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2002;32:197–11.Google Scholar
  14. Myoken Y, Yamane Y, Myoken Y, et al. Plaque removal with an experimental chewable brush and a control manual brush in care-dependent elderly population: a pilot study. J Clin Dent. 2005;16:83–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Oulis C, Raadal M, Martens L. Guidelines on use of fluoride in children: an EAPD policy document. Eur J Pediatr Dent. 2000;1(1):7–12.Google Scholar
  16. Peretz B, Gluck GM. Behaviour and toothbrushing of young Israeli adolescents. ASDC J Dent Child. 1999;66:249–2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Robinson P, Deacon SA, Deery C, et al. Manual versus powered tooth brushing for oral health. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005;2:CD002281.  https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD002281.pub2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Sharma S, Yeluri R, Jani A, et al. Effect of toothbrush grip on plaque removal during manual toothbrushing in children. J Oral Sci. 2012;2(54):183–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Unkel JH, Fenton SJ, Hobbs G Jr, et al. Toothbrushing ability is related to age in children. ASDC J Dent Child. 1995;62:346–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Pedodontics and Preventive DentistryDY Patil Deemed to be University-School of DentistryNavi MumbaiIndia

Personalised recommendations