An Evaluation of Plaque Removal Efficacy of Five Commercially Available Toothbrushes: A Comparative Clinical Study

  • Chakrapani S
  • Polepalle T
  • Kolaparthy L
  • et al.
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
11Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Background and Objectives – The aim of the study is to compare the plaque removal efficacy of five commercially available tooth brushes. Materials & Methods –The study group consisted of 75 subjects with age ranging 17 to 27 years distributed into five groups- Group A [Colgate Supershine], Group B [Colgate Zig zag], Group C [Oral B Allrounder], Group D [Oral B Fresh Clean], Group E [Pepsodent double action]. Study was single blinded, randomized clinical trial. Turesky- Gilmore- Glickmann Modification of Quigley-Hein Plaque Index and Modified Sulcular bleeding index were assessed at baseline, 4 weeks and 8 weeks. Results – All brushes showed significant reduction in plaque score over 8 weeks. The percentage of plaque reduction from baseline to 4 weeks for Group A, B, C, D & E is 58.74, 61.95, 57.86, 50.28 & 53.59 respectively. The percentage of plaque reduction from baseline to 8 weeks for Group A, B, C, D & E is 67.83, 76.11, 62.86, 56.42 & 60.13 respectively. The percentage of plaque reduction from 4 weeks to 8 weeks for Group A, B, C, D & E is 22.03, 37.21, 11.86, 12.36 & 14.08 respectively. However, the reduction of plaque scores is greater in Group B [76%] when compared to other groups. Conclusion – Within the limitations of the study, the data derived from the study shows that all the tooth brushes has shown decrease in plaque scores. In comparison, Colgate Zig zag [Group B] has some beneficial effects in reduction of plaque scores.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Chakrapani, S., Polepalle, T., Kolaparthy, L., Kuntcham, R., Adurty, C., & Sirigadha, S. (2014). An Evaluation of Plaque Removal Efficacy of Five Commercially Available Toothbrushes: A Comparative Clinical Study. International Journal of Dental Sciences and Research, 2(6A), 15–20. https://doi.org/10.12691/ijdsr-2-6a-4

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free