Williams Karen, Rapley Kathy, Haun Jan, Walters Pat, He Tao, Grender Julie, Biesbrock Aaron R
University of Missouri at Kansas City, Kansas City, Missouri, USA.
Am J Dent. 2009 Dec;22(6):345-9.
Although power toothbrushes provide valuable tools toward improving oral health, contrasting results are discerned in their efficiency. This 10-week study was conducted to compare the safety and efficacy of rotation/oscillation and sonic power toothbrushes in the reduction of plaque and gingivitis.
This two-treatment, parallel group, examiner-blind, randomized study had the subjects brush twice daily at home with their assigned rotation/oscillation or sonic toothbrush following manufacturer's instructions with center visits at baseline, and at 4 and 10 weeks following the baseline visit, for assessment of oral safety (all visits), plaque (baseline, Weeks 4 and 10), and gingivitis (baseline and Week 10). Gingivitis and number of bleeding sites were measured using the Löe-Silness Gingivitis Index, and plaque was measured using the Turesky Modification of the Quigley-Hein Plaque Index.
At Week 10, 171 subjects were evaluable for plaque assessment (85 in Sonic group, 86 in rotation/oscillation group) and 165 subjects were evaluable for gingivitis and bleeding sites assessment (84 in sonic group, 81 in rotation/oscillation group). The rotation/oscillation group had statistically significantly lower gingivitis scores (by 3.5%) and statistically significantly fewer bleeding sites than the sonic group (by 16.1%) with P = 0.038 and 0.028, respectively, at Week 10. Compared to baseline, only the rotation/oscillation group showed a statistically significant improvement in gingivitis (P = 0.003) and bleeding (P < 0.001) at Week 10. At both Weeks 4 and 10, the rotation/oscillation group had directionally lower plaque scores than the sonic group (by approximately 3%), but treatment group differences were not statistically significant (P > 0.1) at either time point. Both groups showed statistically significantly lower plaque scores at Weeks 4 and 10 relative to baseline.
尽管电动牙刷为改善口腔健康提供了有价值的工具，但其效率却存在不同的结果。本为期10周的研究旨在比较旋转/振荡式电动牙刷和声波电动牙刷在减少牙菌斑和牙龈炎方面的安全性和有效性。
本双治疗、平行组、检查者盲法、随机研究让受试者在家中按照制造商的说明，每天使用指定的旋转/振荡式或声波牙刷刷牙两次，在基线时以及基线访视后的第4周和第10周进行中心访视，以评估口腔安全性（所有访视）、牙菌斑（基线、第4周和第10周）和牙龈炎（基线和第10周）。使用洛-西尔斯牙龈炎指数测量牙龈炎和出血部位数量，使用对奎格利-海因菌斑指数的图尔斯基改良法测量牙菌斑。
在第10周时，171名受试者可进行牙菌斑评估（声波组85名，旋转/振荡组86名），165名受试者可进行牙龈炎和出血部位评估（声波组84名，旋转/振荡组81名）。在第10周时，旋转/振荡组的牙龈炎评分在统计学上显著低于声波组（低3.5%），出血部位在统计学上显著少于声波组（少16.1%），P值分别为0.038和0.028。与基线相比，仅旋转/振荡组在第10周时牙龈炎（P = 0.003）和出血（P < 0.001）有统计学显著改善。在第4周和第10周时，旋转/振荡组的牙菌斑评分在方向上均低于声波组（约低3%），但在两个时间点治疗组差异均无统计学显著性（P > 0.1）。与基线相比，两组在第4周和第10周时牙菌斑评分均有统计学显著降低。
