Manual Versus Electric Toothbrush Efficacy in the Primary Dentition: A Randomized Crossover Clinical Trial Using Image Analysis of Digital Photographs.

IF 0.4 Q4 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY FOR CHILDREN Pub Date : 2023-01-15
Marí Lidia Elizondo, Guillermo Martín Rosa, Lorena Dos Santos Antola, Andrea Verónica Galiana
{"title":"Manual Versus Electric Toothbrush Efficacy in the Primary Dentition: A Randomized Crossover Clinical Trial Using Image Analysis of Digital Photographs.","authors":"Marí Lidia Elizondo,&nbsp;Guillermo Martín Rosa,&nbsp;Lorena Dos Santos Antola,&nbsp;Andrea Verónica Galiana","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Purpose:</b> To evaluate the efficacy in dental biofilm (DB) removal between electric toothbrushes versus manual toothbrushes in primary dentition using an Image Analysis System (IAS) of digital photographs.<br/> <b>Methods:</b> A prospective, randomized, controlled, blind, crossover clinical trial was conducted for 12 weeks with children between four to six years of age. The amount of DB was evaluated at zero, four, eight and 12 weeks. The degree of acceptance of the type of toothbrush used by the child was assessed at week 12.<br/> <b>Results:</b> Twenty-two children participated and 176 photographs were taken, with 1,408 images of primary incisors being digitally analyzed by IAS. DB was significantly reduced by both types of toothbrushes on day zero (manual=7.44±1.83 percent; electric= 9.80±2.03 percent) and at week four (manual=8.57±2.23 percent; electric= 5.85±2.10 percent). However, there was no statistically significant difference in DB reduction when both types were compared. After week four, when compared prospectively, there was a statistically significant reduction (<i>P</i> <0.05) of DB for the electric toothbrush only. Electric toothbrushes had a significantly greater acceptance by the participants (<i>P</i> <0.01).<br/> <b>Conclusion:</b> Electric toothbrushes eliminated DB better and were more accepted by the children than manual toothbrushes.</p>","PeriodicalId":51605,"journal":{"name":"JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY FOR CHILDREN","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY FOR CHILDREN","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy in dental biofilm (DB) removal between electric toothbrushes versus manual toothbrushes in primary dentition using an Image Analysis System (IAS) of digital photographs.
Methods: A prospective, randomized, controlled, blind, crossover clinical trial was conducted for 12 weeks with children between four to six years of age. The amount of DB was evaluated at zero, four, eight and 12 weeks. The degree of acceptance of the type of toothbrush used by the child was assessed at week 12.
Results: Twenty-two children participated and 176 photographs were taken, with 1,408 images of primary incisors being digitally analyzed by IAS. DB was significantly reduced by both types of toothbrushes on day zero (manual=7.44±1.83 percent; electric= 9.80±2.03 percent) and at week four (manual=8.57±2.23 percent; electric= 5.85±2.10 percent). However, there was no statistically significant difference in DB reduction when both types were compared. After week four, when compared prospectively, there was a statistically significant reduction (P <0.05) of DB for the electric toothbrush only. Electric toothbrushes had a significantly greater acceptance by the participants (P <0.01).
Conclusion: Electric toothbrushes eliminated DB better and were more accepted by the children than manual toothbrushes.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
手动牙刷和电动牙刷对初级牙列的疗效:一项使用数字照片图像分析的随机交叉临床试验。
目的:利用数码照片图像分析系统(IAS)评价电动牙刷与手动牙刷去除初级牙列生物膜(DB)的效果。方法:一项前瞻性、随机、对照、盲、交叉临床试验,对4 - 6岁的儿童进行了为期12周的研究。分别于0周、4周、8周和12周评估DB的量。在第12周对儿童使用的牙刷类型的接受程度进行评估。结果:22名儿童参与,拍摄照片176张,其中1408张主要门牙图像被IAS数字化分析。两种类型的牙刷在第0天显著降低了DB(手动=7.44±1.83%;电动= 9.80±2.03%),第4周(手动=8.57±2.23%;电气= 5.85±2.10%)。然而,当两种类型进行比较时,DB降低没有统计学意义上的差异。第四周后,当前瞻性比较时,统计学上显著降低(P P)结论:电动牙刷比手动牙刷更能消除DB,更被儿童接受。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY FOR CHILDREN
JOURNAL OF DENTISTRY FOR CHILDREN DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
19
期刊介绍: Acquired after the merger between the American Society of Dentistry for Children and the American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry in 2002, the Journal of Dentistry for Children (JDC) is an internationally renowned journal whose publishing dates back to 1934. Published three times a year, JDC promotes the practice, education and research specifically related to the specialty of pediatric dentistry. It covers a wide range of topics related to the clinical care of children, from clinical techniques of daily importance to the practitioner, to studies on child behavior and growth and development. JDC also provides information on the physical, psychological and emotional conditions of children as they relate to and affect their dental health.
期刊最新文献
Acceptance of Behavior Guidance Techniques in Pediatric Dentistry Between American and Colombian Parents. Angioleiomyomatous Hamartoma of Incisive Papilla in an Adolescent. Caregivers' Perceptions of Dental Therapists. Clinical Implications of Temporomandibular Condyle Agenesis in a Toddler. COVID-19 Pandemic-Related Behavioral and Attitudinal Changes in Caregivers.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1