Claydon N, Leech K, Addy M, Newcombe R G, Ley F, Scratcher C
Division of Restorative Dentistry, Dental School, Bristol, UK.
J Clin Periodontol. 2000 Oct;27(10):744-8. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-051x.2000.027010744.x.
The consensus has been that there is no one superior design of manual toothbrush for plaque removal, despite, in some cases, encouraging findings from laboratory studies. The user appears the major variable and may mask differences in brush efficacy.
The aim of this study was to compare 2 new double-filament texture brushes with 3 established brands for plaque removal, under standardised conditions of professional brushing.
The study was a blind, randomised crossover design, balanced for residual effects. A panel of 15 subjects suspended tooth cleaning for 3 days. On day 4, plaque was scored from 6 sites per tooth before and after a 2-min professional toothbrushing. A washout period of at least 3 days was allowed between study periods.
Overall plaque removal was 50% with no significant differences between brushes, a 3% absolute difference in average total mouth plaque separating brushes. However, at upper- and mid-buccal sites, a not significant 8% and a significant 9% difference, respectively, in plaque removal were recorded in favour of one of the prototype brushes, and at the mid-lingual site, there was a non-significant 10% difference in favour of one branded brush. Other sites were cleaned similarly by all brushes except for reduced plaque removal from buccal compared to lingual surfaces and interproximal compared to mid-surface sites. Highly significant subject differences in plaque removal were noted which may be relevant to inherent anatomical difficulties in tooth cleaning for some individuals. Period effects were not significant, supporting the consistency in brushing by the professional brusher.
The method appeared capable of detecting small benefits of brush design. However, the benefits reported must be taken within the context of an overall lack of difference between brushes. The method could be used to set and record a minimum level of efficacy for toothbrushes.
尽管在某些情况下实验室研究有令人鼓舞的结果，但对于去除牙菌斑而言，尚无一种手动牙刷设计明显优于其他设计这一共识已达成。使用者似乎是主要变量，可能掩盖了牙刷功效的差异。
本研究的目的是在专业刷牙的标准化条件下，比较两种新型双丝纹理牙刷与三种知名品牌牙刷在去除牙菌斑方面的效果。
本研究采用盲法、随机交叉设计，并对残留效应进行了平衡。15名受试者组成的小组暂停牙齿清洁3天。在第4天，在专业刷牙2分钟前后，对每颗牙齿的6个部位进行牙菌斑评分。研究期间之间允许至少3天的洗脱期。
总体牙菌斑清除率为50%，各牙刷之间无显著差异，平均全口牙菌斑清除率的绝对差异为3%，这将各牙刷区分开来。然而，在上颌和颊中部位点，一种原型牙刷的牙菌斑清除率分别有8%（无显著差异）和9%（显著差异）的优势，在舌中部位点，一种品牌牙刷有10%（无显著差异）的优势。除了颊面与舌面相比、邻面与面中部位点相比牙菌斑清除率降低外，所有牙刷对其他位点的清洁效果相似。注意到受试者在牙菌斑清除方面存在高度显著的差异，这可能与某些个体在牙齿清洁方面固有的解剖学困难有关。时期效应不显著，这支持了专业刷牙者刷牙的一致性。
该方法似乎能够检测到牙刷设计的微小益处。然而，所报告的益处必须在各牙刷总体无差异的背景下看待。该方法可用于设定和记录牙刷的最低功效水平。
