Clinical and cost effectiveness of the counter-rotational brush in private practice.

Abstract

There have previously been no studies on the cost effectiveness of the use of a counter-rotational toothbrush (INTERPLAK Home Plaque-Removal Instrument), which has been demonstrated to be more effective than ordinary toothbrushes in reaching plaque-removal and gingival-health goals. Killoy et al studied the costs of required periodontal treatment for 32 patients with moderate periodontitis at two corporate capitation dental centers. The subjects were divided into two groups, a test group that brushed with a counter-rotational toothbrush and one that brushed with a manual toothbrush. Probing depth, attachment levels, and plaque and bleeding indexes in the test brush group were better than those in the control group. The end result was a mean reduction of $535 in the cost of periodontal treatment that had been planned before using the counter-rotational brush over 18 months, while the group using the manual brush experienced a mean increase of $11 in required treatment over original plans. Furthermore, the test group reached a state of gingival health, but the control group did not. The study concluded that the counter-rotational brush is cost effective.