ABSTRACT
Background:
Gingivitis is a prevalent oral health issue characterized by inflammation of the gums, often resulting from inadequate plaque removal.
Materials and Methods:
A randomized controlled trial was conducted with 120 participants diagnosed with gingivitis, aged 18 to 65 years. Participants were divided into four groups: Group A used a manual toothbrush, Group B used an electric toothbrush, Group C used dental floss in addition to manual brushing, and Group D used mouthwash in addition to manual brushing. The study duration was eight weeks, with gingival index (GI) scores recorded at baseline, four weeks, and eight weeks. Plaque index (PI) and bleeding on probing (BOP) were also assessed as secondary outcomes.
Results:
At the end of eight weeks, Group B (electric toothbrush) showed the most significant reduction in gingival index scores (mean reduction: 1.2, P < 0.01), followed by Group D (mouthwash) with a mean reduction of 1.0 (P < 0.05). Group C (dental floss) exhibited a moderate reduction (mean reduction: 0.8, P < 0.05), while Group A (manual toothbrush) had the least improvement (mean reduction: 0.5, P = 0.08). Plaque index and bleeding on probing results followed a similar trend, with the electric toothbrush group demonstrating superior outcomes.
Conclusion:
The study concludes that electric toothbrushes are more effective in managing gingivitis compared to manual toothbrushes, dental floss, and mouthwash.
KEYWORDS: Dental floss, electric toothbrush, gingival index, gingivitis, manual toothbrush, mouthwash, oral hygiene aids
INTRODUCTION
Gingivitis, characterized by inflammation and bleeding of the gums, is a prevalent oral health condition affecting a significant portion of the population worldwide. It is primarily caused by the accumulation of dental plaque, a biofilm that forms on the surfaces of teeth and gums, leading to an inflammatory response in the gingival tissues.[1] If left untreated, gingivitis can progress to periodontitis, a more severe form of gum disease that can result in tooth loss.[2] Effective management of gingivitis is crucial to prevent its progression and maintain oral health.
Oral hygiene aids play a vital role in the prevention and management of gingivitis by enhancing plaque removal. Traditional manual toothbrushes have been the cornerstone of oral hygiene practices, but their effectiveness largely depends on the user’s technique and motivation.[3] Electric toothbrushes have been introduced as an alternative, offering automated bristle movement that may enhance plaque removal efficiency and reduce gingival inflammation.[4,5] Studies have shown that electric toothbrushes can be more effective than manual ones in reducing gingivitis and plaque levels, owing to their ability to perform oscillating/rotating or sonic actions.[6]
In addition to toothbrushes, adjunctive oral hygiene aids, such as dental floss and mouthwash, are commonly recommended for comprehensive plaque control. Dental floss is effective in cleaning interdental areas that are difficult to reach with a toothbrush alone, thus playing a crucial role in preventing gingivitis.[7] Mouthwashes, particularly those containing antimicrobial agents like chlorhexidine, have been shown to reduce plaque and gingivitis when used as an adjunct to toothbrushing.[8,9]
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study design and population
The study included 120 participants, aged 18 to 65 years, diagnosed with mild to moderate gingivitis. Participants were recruited through advertisements and referrals from local dental clinics. Inclusion criteria were individuals with at least 20 natural teeth, a gingival index (GI) score of 1.0 or higher, and no recent periodontal treatment in the past six months. Exclusion criteria included individuals with systemic diseases affecting gingival health, those using medications influencing gingival status, and smokers.
Randomization and intervention
Participants were randomly assigned to one of four groups using a computer-generated randomization sequence:
Group A (manual toothbrush): Participants used a standard manual toothbrush (Oral-B Soft, Procter and Gamble) twice daily for two minutes.
Group B (electric toothbrush): Participants used an electric toothbrush (Oral-B Pro 2000, Procter and Gamble) twice daily for two minutes.
Group C (dental floss): Participants used a manual toothbrush along with dental floss (Oral-B Essential Floss, Procter and Gamble) once daily.
Group D (mouthwash): Participants used a manual toothbrush and a mouthwash containing 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate (Periogard, Colgate-Palmolive) twice daily.
Clinical measurements
Clinical assessments were conducted at baseline, four weeks, and eight weeks by a single calibrated examiner blinded to group allocation. The primary outcome measure was the gingival index score, assessing the severity of gingival inflammation on a scale of 0 to 3. Secondary outcome measures included the plaque index (PI) and bleeding on probing (BOP) scores.
Statistical analysis
Data were analyzed using SPSS software (version 26.0, IBM Corp).
RESULTS
Gingival index (GI) scores
The gingival index scores for each group at baseline, four weeks, and eight weeks are presented in Table 1. All groups showed a reduction in GI scores over time, with the most significant reduction observed in the electric toothbrush group (Group B).
Table 1.
Gingival index (GI) scores
| Time point | Group A (manual toothbrush) | Group B (electric toothbrush) | Group C (dental floss) | Group D (mouthwash) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | 1.8±0.2 | 1.9±0.2 | 1.7±0.3 | 1.8±0.3 |
| 4 Weeks | 1.5±0.3 | 1.2±0.2 | 1.4±0.2 | 1.3±0.3 |
| 8 Weeks | 1.3±0.2 | 0.7±0.2 | 1.1±0.3 | 0.8±0.2 |
Group B (electric toothbrush) showed a significant reduction in GI scores from baseline to eight weeks (P<0.01)
Plaque index (PI) scores
The plaque index scores at baseline, four weeks, and eight weeks are shown in Table 2. Similar to GI scores, the electric toothbrush group exhibited the greatest reduction in PI scores.
Table 2.
Plaque index (PI) scores
| Time point | Group A (manual toothbrush) | Group B (electric toothbrush) | Group C (dental floss) | Group D (mouthwash) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | 2.2±0.3 | 2.3±0.3 | 2.1±0.2 | 2.2±0.2 |
| 4 Weeks | 1.8±0.3 | 1.3±0.2 | 1.6±0.2 | 1.5±0.3 |
| 8 Weeks | 1.5±0.2 | 0.8±0.2 | 1.3±0.3 | 1.0±0.2 |
Analysis
Significant reductions in PI scores were observed in Group B (P < 0.01) and Group D (P < 0.05).
Group C also showed a notable improvement compared to Group A (P < 0.05).
Bleeding on probing (BOP)
The percentage of sites with bleeding on probing decreased in all groups, as detailed in Table 3. The electric toothbrush and mouthwash groups showed the most pronounced reduction.
Table 3.
Bleeding on probing (BOP) percentage
| Time point | Group A (manual toothbrush) | Group B (electric toothbrush) | Group C (dental floss) | Group D (mouthwash) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Baseline | 40% | 42% | 38% | 39% |
| 4 Weeks | 30% | 20% | 28% | 22% |
| 8 Weeks | 25% | 10% | 20% | 12% |
Analysis
Group B had the greatest reduction in BOP, with a decrease from 42% at baseline to 10% at eight weeks (P < 0.01).
Group D showed similar improvements, reducing from 39 to 12% (P < 0.05).
DISCUSSION
The significant reduction in gingival index scores observed in the electric toothbrush group can be attributed to the oscillating/rotating or sonic actions of these devices, which enhances plaque removal efficiency compared to manual brushing.[3] This finding is consistent with a Cochrane review that reported greater reductions in plaque and gingivitis with powered toothbrushes.[4] Furthermore, the ease of use and consistency in brushing technique offered by electric toothbrushes may contribute to better compliance and overall effectiveness.[5]
Mouthwash, as an adjunctive oral hygiene aid, also demonstrated significant benefits in reducing gingival inflammation and plaque levels. The use of chlorhexidine-containing mouthwash resulted in marked improvements, likely due to its broad-spectrum antimicrobial properties that inhibit plaque formation and reduce bacterial load.[6] This is in agreement with previous research, showing that chlorhexidine mouthwash can effectively complement mechanical plaque control in managing gingivitis.[7]
Dental floss, while not as effective as electric toothbrushes or mouthwash, still contributed to moderate improvements in gingival health. Flossing is particularly beneficial in removing interdental plaque, which may not be reached by toothbrush bristles alone.[8] However, its effectiveness largely depends on proper technique and regular use, which can be challenging for some individuals.[9]
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, this study supports the use of electric toothbrushes and mouthwash as effective tools in gingivitis management. By incorporating these aids into their oral hygiene routine, individuals can achieve significant improvements in gingival health and reduce the risk of progression to more severe periodontal diseases.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
Funding Statement
Nil.
REFERENCES
- 1.Yaacob M, Worthington HV, Deacon SA, Deery C, Walmsley AD, Robinson PG, et al. Powered versus manual toothbrushing for oral health. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014. 2014 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002281.pub3. CD002281. doi: 10.1002/14651858. CD002281.pub3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Van der Weijden GA, Slot DE. Oral hygiene in the prevention of periodontal diseases: The evidence. Periodontol 2000. 2011;55:104–23. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0757.2009.00337.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Heanue M, Deacon SA, Deery C, Robinson PG, Walmsley AD, Worthington HV, et al. Manual versus powered toothbrushing for oral health. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002281. CD002281. doi: 10.1002/14651858. CD002281. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Van der Weijden FA, Slot DE. Efficacy of homecare regimens for mechanical plaque removal in managing gingivitis: A meta review. J Clin Periodontol. 2015;42((Suppl 16)):S77–91. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12359. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12359. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Robinson PG, Deacon SA, Deery C, Heanue M, Walmsley AD, Worthington HV, et al. Manual versus powered toothbrushing for oral health. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005 doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002281. CD002281. doi: 10.1002/14651858. CD002281.pub2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Gunsolley JC. A meta-analysis of six-month studies of antiplaque and antigingivitis agents. J Am Dent Assoc. 2006;137:1649–57. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.2006.0110. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Van Strydonck DA, Slot DE, Van der Velden U, Van der Weijden F. Effect of a chlorhexidine mouthrinse on plaque, gingival inflammation and staining in gingivitis patients: A systematic review. J Clin Periodontol. 2012;39:1042–55. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2012.01883.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Haffajee AD, Smith C, Torresyap G, Thompson M, Guerrero D, Socransky SS. Efficacy of manual and powered toothbrushes (II). Effect on microbiological parameters. J Clin Periodontol. 2001;28:947–54. doi: 10.1034/j.1600-051x.2001.028010947.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9.Cumming BR, Löe H. Consistency of plaque distribution in individuals without special home care instruction. J Periodontol. 1973;44:534–40. doi: 10.1111/j.1600-0765.1973.tb00756.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]