fa Efficacy of 3 toothbrush treatments on plaque removal in orthodontic patients assessed with digital plaque imaging: A randomized controlled trial ارتودنسی Orthodontics پژوهشي Research <p> <strong>Introduction</strong></p><p>  Good oral hygiene is a challenge for orthodontic patients because food readily becomes trapped around the brackets and under the archwires, and appliances are an obstruction to mechanical brushing. The purpose of this study was to compare plaque removal efficacy of 3 toothbrush treatments in orthodontic subjects. </p><p> <strong>Methods</strong> </p><p> This was a replicate-use, single-brushing, 3-treatment, examiner-blind, randomized, 6-period crossover study with washout periods of approximately 24 hours between visits. Forty-six adolescent and young adult patients with fixed orthodontics from a university clinic in Germany were randomized, based on computer-generated randomization, to 1 of 3 treatments: (1) oscillating-rotating electric toothbrush with a specially designed orthodontic brush head (Oral-B Triumph, OD17 Procter & Gamble, Cincinnati, Ohio) (2) the same electric toothbrush handle with a regular brush head (EB25 Procter & Gamble) and (3) a regular manual toothbrush (American Dental Association, Chicago, Ill). The primary outcome was the plaque score change from baseline, which we determined using digital plaque image analysis. <strong></strong></p><p> <strong>Results</strong> </p><p> Forty-five subjects completed the study. The differences in mean plaque removal (95% confidence interval) between the electric toothbrush with an orthodontic brush head (6% [4.4%-7.6%]) or a regular brush head (3.8% [2.2%-5.3%]) and the manual toothbrush were significant (P <0.001). Plaque removal with the electric toothbrush with the orthodontic brush head was superior (2.2% P = 0.007) to the regular brush head. No adverse events were seen. </p><p> <strong>Conclusions</strong> </p><p> The electric toothbrush, with either brush head, demonstrated significantly greater plaque removal over the manual brush. The orthodontic brush head was superior to the regular head. </p><hr><p></p><p> <strong>Source: </strong>American Journal of Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopedics </p><p> <a href="http://www.ajodo.org/article/S0889-5406(13)00259-X/abstract" target="_blank"><font color="#0000ff">Full Text</font></a></p> 0 0 http://idai.ir/browse.php?a_code=A-10-32-1794&slc_lang=fa&sid=1 Christina Erbe 10031947532846008449 10031947532846008449 No Department of Orthodontics, University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Mainz, Germany Malgorzata Klukowska 10031947532846008450 10031947532846008450 Yes Global Clinical Investigations, Procter & Gamble Company, Mason, Ohio Iris Tsaknaki 10031947532846008451 10031947532846008451 No Department of Orthodontics, University Medical Centre of the Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Mainz, Germany Hans Timm 10031947532846008452 10031947532846008452 No Research & Development, Procter & Gamble Company, Kronberg, Germany Julie Grender 10031947532846008453 10031947532846008453 No Department of Biostatistics, Procter & Gamble Company, Mason, Ohio Heinrich Wehrbein 10031947532846008454 10031947532846008454 No Department of Orthodontics, University Medical Centre of the Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Mainz, Germany