A comparison of a waterpik dual-motor powered toothbrush and a manual toothbrush in affecting interproximal bleeding reduction and dental biofilm accumulation.

OBJECTIVE

This single-blind, 21-day clinical study was designed to compare the effectiveness of a dual-motor powered toothbrush (SynchroSonic) and a manual toothbrush in affecting interproximal bleeding reduction and dental biofilm accumulation in a cohort of 70 subjects.

METHODOLOGY

After baseline evaluations of soft tissue trauma, dental biofilm and interproximal bleeding, subjects were randomly assigned to one of the two experimental groups, given toothbrushing instructions and had their teeth cleaned. At 21 days, the clinical parameters were again evaluated.

RESULTS

In the powered toothbrush group, there were 37 subjects at baseline and 36 subjects at follow-up. In the manual toothbrush group, there were 34 subjects at baseline and 33 subjects at follow-up. In the powered toothbrush group, the mean biofilm index fell from 3.46 to 3.12; a 9.7% reduction. In the manual toothbrush group, the mean biofilm index fell from 3.51 to 3.30; a 5.4% reduction. The powered toothbrush group showed significantly greater biofilm reduction (9.7% vs. 5.4%, p = 0.043). In the powered toothbrush group, the mean gingival bleeding index fell from 0.66 to 0.44; a 32% reduction. In the manual toothbrush group, the mean gingival bleeding index fell from 0.66 to 0.53; a 20% reduction. The powered toothbrush group showed significantly greater gingival bleeding reduction (32% vs. 20%, p = 0.02).

CONCLUSION

The results demonstrated that both the manual toothbrush and the SynchroSonic powered toothbrush were safe, with no evidence of clinically significant hard or soft tissue abrasion observed. Additionally, the powered toothbrush was more effective in reducing biofilm and gingival bleeding than the manual toothbrush.