Department of Conservative and Preventive Dentistry, Dental Clinic of the Justus-Liebig-University Giessen, Giessen, Germany.
Procter & Gamble Service GmbH, Kronberg, Germany.
PLoS One. 2020 Dec 30;15(12):e0244678. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244678. eCollection 2020.
Video observation (VO) is an established tool for observing toothbrushing behaviour, however, it is a subjective method requiring thorough calibration and training, and the toothbrush position is not always clearly visible. As automated tracking of motions may overcome these disadvantages, the study aimed to compare observational data of habitual toothbrushing as well as of post-instruction toothbrushing obtained from motion tracking (MT) to observational data obtained from VO. One-hundred-three subjects (37.4±14.7 years) were included and brushed their teeth with a manual (MB; n = 51) or a powered toothbrush (PB; n = 52) while being simultaneously video-filmed and tracked. Forty-six subjects were then instructed how to brush their teeth systematically and were filmed/tracked for a second time. Videos were analysed with INTERACT (Mangold, Germany); parameters of interest were toothbrush position, brushing time, changes between areas (events) and the Toothbrushing Systematic Index (TSI). Overall, the median proportion (min; max) of identically classified toothbrush positions (both sextant/surface correct) in a brushing session was 87.8% (50.0; 96.9), which was slightly higher for MB compared to PB (90.3 (50.0; 96.9) vs 86.5 (63.7; 96.5) resp.; p = 0.005). The number of events obtained from MT was higher than from VO (p < 0.001) with a moderate to high correlation between them (MB: ρ = 0.52, p < 0.001; PB: ρ = 0.87; p < 0.001). After instruction, both methods revealed a significant increase of the TSI regardless of the toothbrush type (p < 0.001 each). Motion tracking is a suitable tool for observing toothbrushing behaviour, is able to measure improvements after instruction, and can be used with both manual and powered toothbrushes.
视频观察（VO）是一种用于观察刷牙行为的既定工具，但它是一种主观方法，需要进行彻底的校准和培训，并且牙刷的位置并不总是清晰可见。由于自动跟踪运动可能会克服这些缺点，因此本研究旨在比较从运动跟踪（MT）获得的习惯性刷牙和指导后刷牙的观察数据，以及从 VO 获得的观察数据。共纳入 103 名受试者（37.4±14.7 岁），他们分别使用手动（MB；n=51）或电动牙刷（PB；n=52）刷牙，同时进行视频拍摄和跟踪。然后，46 名受试者接受了如何系统刷牙的指导，并再次进行拍摄/跟踪。使用 INTERACT（德国 Mangold）对视频进行分析；感兴趣的参数包括牙刷位置、刷牙时间、区域之间的变化（事件）和刷牙系统性指数（TSI）。总体而言，在一次刷牙过程中，牙刷位置完全分类（两者均为六分区/表面正确）的中位数比例（最小；最大）为 87.8%（50.0；96.9），MB 略高于 PB（90.3（50.0；96.9）比 86.5（63.7；96.5）；p=0.005）。MT 获得的事件数量多于 VO（p<0.001），两者之间具有中度至高度相关性（MB：ρ=0.52，p<0.001；PB：ρ=0.87；p<0.001）。指导后，两种方法都显示 TSI 显著增加，与牙刷类型无关（p<0.001）。运动跟踪是一种观察刷牙行为的合适工具，能够测量指导后的改善，并且可以与手动和电动牙刷一起使用。
