International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry

Register      Login

VOLUME 14 , ISSUE 3 ( May-June, 2021 ) > List of Articles


Comparison of Plaque Removal Efficacy with Powered and Manual Toothbrushes in 10–14-year-old Visually and Auditory Impaired Children: A Randomized Controlled Study

Nikhil G Patel, Swara Shah, Akash Ardeshana, Pratik B Kariya, Harshangi N Patel

Keywords : Manual toothbrush, Plaque index, Powered toothbrush, Sensory impaired children

Citation Information : Patel NG, Shah S, Ardeshana A, Kariya PB, Patel HN. Comparison of Plaque Removal Efficacy with Powered and Manual Toothbrushes in 10–14-year-old Visually and Auditory Impaired Children: A Randomized Controlled Study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent 2021; 14 (3):364-368.

DOI: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1949

License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Published Online: 29-09-2021

Copyright Statement:  Copyright © 2021; The Author(s).


Aim and objective: To compare dental plaque removal efficacy with a manual and powered toothbrush in 10–14 years old visually and auditory impaired children. Material and methods: The proposed study was a randomized controlled study. The ethical approval was obtained from the institutional ethical board. The written informed consent for the study was taken from the parents. The 60 participants were categorized into group I: visually impaired (30) and group II: speech and hearing impaired (30) which were again divided into I1 (manual toothbrush) and I2 (powered toothbrush); II1 (manual toothbrush) and II2 (powered toothbrush), respectively. The baseline score was recorded using Turesky–Gilmor–Glickman Modification of The Quigley–Hein plaque Index. The oral prophylaxis was performed and then randomization of the toothbrush group was done with concealed allocation method. The plaque-removal efficacy was evaluated at the end of the 15 days in the visually and hearing-impaired children. Results: The mean score of dental plaque at baseline was 1.44 for the manual toothbrush group and 1.65 for the powered toothbrush group in visually impaired children, respectively. In blind children with a manual toothbrush, the mean score difference was 0.14 while the powered toothbrush showed the mean score difference of 0.30 which is significant. The mean score of dental plaque at baseline was 1.74 for the manual toothbrush group and 1.80 for the powered toothbrush group in auditory impaired children. In auditory impaired children with manual toothbrushes, the mean score difference was 0.15 while the powered toothbrush showed the mean score of 0.32 which was significant. Conclusion: Dental plaque reduction was significantly better with the powered toothbrush as compared to a manual toothbrush in visually and auditory impaired children.

  1. Jain A, Gupta J, Aggarwal V, et al. To evaluate the comparative status of oral health practices, oral hygiene and periodontal status amongst visually impaired and sighted students. Spec Care Dentist 2013;33(2):78–84. DOI: 10.1111/j.1754-4505.2012.00296.x.
  2. Sharma A, Arora R, Kenchappa M, et al. Clinical evaluation ofthe plaque removing ability of four different toothbrushes in visually impaired children. Oral Health Prev Dent 2012;10(3):219–224.
  3. Djeri A, Radman IK, Grabež M, et al. Oral health in children with hearing and speech impairment in Banjaluka. Serbin Dent J 2013;60(3):139–146. DOI: 10.2298/SGS1303139D.
  4. Yousaf A, Aman D, Manzoor A, et al. Compression of powered and manual tooth brush in removal of plaque. Pak Oral Dental J 2012;32(1):120–123.
  5. Dulgergil T, Civelek A, Soyman M, et al. Dental plaque removal efficacy of a battery powered and manual toothbrush. Oral Health Dent Manag 2004;3(1):7–11.
  6. Rao D, Hegde A, Munshi AK. Oral hygiene status of disabled children and adolescents attending special schools of South Canara, India. Hong Kong Dent J 2005;2:107–113.
  7. Kamatchy KR, Joseph J, Krishnan CG. Dental caries prevalence and experience among the group of institutionalized hearing-impaired individuals in Pondicherry - a descriptive study. Indian J Dent Res 2003;14(1):29–32.
  8. Zainal M, Ismail SM, Ropilah AR, et al. Prevalence of blindness and low vision in Malaysian population: results from the national eye survey. Br J Ophthalmol 2002;86(9):951–956. DOI: 10.1136/bjo.86.9.951.
  9. Chang CS, Shih Y. Knowledge of dental health and oral hygiene practices of Taiwanese visually impaired and sighted students. J Visual Impairment Blindness 2004;98(5):1–27. DOI: 10.1177/0145482X0409800504.
  10. Thompson DC, McPhillips H, Davis RL. Universal newborn hearing screening: summary of evidence. J Am Dent Assoc 2001;286(16):2000–2010. DOI: 10.1001/jama.286.16.2000.
  11. García-Godoy F. The safety and efficacy of a children's power toothbrush and a manual toothbrush in 6 to 11 year olds. Am J Dent 2001;14(4):195–199. DOI: 10.1016/S0002-8223(01)00052-9.
  12. Kallar S, Pandit IK, Srivastava N, et al. Plaque removal efficacy of powered and manual toothbrushes under supervised and unsupervised conditions: a comparative clinical study. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2011;29(3):235–238. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.85832.
  13. Ghassemi A, Vorwerk L, Hooper W, et al. Comparative plaque removal efficacy of a new children's powered toothbrush and a manual toothbrush. J Clin Dent 2013;24(1):1–4.
  14. Hoover JN, Singer D. Toothbrushes: manual and electric. J Can Dent Assoc 1994;60(10):880–884.
  15. Ashley P. Toothbrushing: why, when and how? Dent Update 2001;28(1):36–40. DOI: 10.12968/denu.2001.28.1.36.
  16. Grossman E, Proskin H. A comparison of the efficacy and safety of an electric and a manual children's toothbrush. J Am Dent Assoc 1997;128(4):469–474. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.1997.0232.
  17. Breuer MM, Cosgrove R, Hardy D, et al. A comparison of the plaque-removal efficacies of two electric toothbrushes. Quintessence Int 1989;20(7):501–504.
  18. Mayer R. Electric toothbrush manual toothbrush, a comparison test. ZWR 1990;99(3):188–192.
  19. Niederman R. ADA Council on Scientific Affairs; ADA Division of Science; Journal of the American Dental Association Manual versus powered toothbrushes: the Cochrane review. J Am Dent Assoc 2003;134(9):1240–1244. DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2003.0359.
  20. McInnes C, Engel D, Martin RW. Fimbria damage and removal of adherent bacteria after exposure to acoustic energy. Oral Microbiol Immunol 1993;8(5):277–282. DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-302x.1993. tb00574.x.
  21. Kaur S, Malhotra R, Malhotra R, et al. Oral hygiene status of mentally and physically challenged individuals living in a specialized institution in Mohali, India. Indian J Oral Sci 2013;4(1):17–22. DOI: 10.4103/0976-6944.118515.
  22. Hebbal M, AnkolaA V. Development of a new technique (ATP) for training visually impaired children in oral hygiene maintenance. Eur J Paediatr Dent 2012;5(5):242–247. DOI: 10.1007/BF03262878.
  23. Maciel MAS, Cordeiro PM, d’Ávila S. Assessing the oral condition of visually impaired individuals attending the Paraíba Institute of the Blind. Revista Odonto Ciencia 2009;24:354–360.
  24. Sandeep V, Vinay C, Madhuri V, et al. Impact of visual instruction on oral hygiene status of children with hearing impairment. J Indian Soc Pedod Prev Dent 2014;32(1):39–43. DOI: 10.4103/0970-4388.127053.
PDF Share
PDF Share

© Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) LTD.