Table 3.
Main conclusion of each included study with significance and conclusions.
| Nr. | References | Better Clinical Results in: | Significance (p < 0.05) | Conclusion |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ccahuana-Vasquez RA. [41] | OR | No | Both types of toothbrush had significant results on clinical parameters compared to baseline (p < 0.001) but no significant differences were reported between OR and SA. |
| 2 | Goyal CR. [42] | OR | YES | Both types of toothbrush had significant results on clinical parameters compared to baseline (p < 0.001). Moreover, it is declared in the results that OR significantly reduced Gingival Index and bleeding, 40—50 % greater, compared to the SA, nevertheless the statics and p-value is not clear.* |
| 3 | Klukowska M. [43] | OR | YES | Both types of toothbrush had significant results on clinical parameters compared to baseline (p < 0.001). Moreover, it is declared in the results that OR reduced Gingival Index and bleeding significantly greater compared to the SA, but the statics and p-value is not clear. * |
| 4 | Klukowska M. [44] | OR | YES | Both types of toothbrush had significant results on clinical parameters compared to baseline (p < 0.001). Moreover, it is declared in the results that OR reduced Gingival Index and bleeding significantly greater compared to the SA, but the statics and p-value is not clear. * |
| 5 | Klukowska M. [45] | OR | YES | Both types of toothbrush had significant results on clinical parameters compared to baseline (p < 0.001). Moreover, it is declared in the results that OR reduced Gingival Index and bleeding significantly greater compared to the SA, but the statics and p-value is not clear. * |
| 6 | Patters MR. [46] | / | / | The OR group differed significantly from the SA group in mean Plaque Index at 4 and 12 weeks (p < 0.05) while SA was significantly greater in Gingival Index at 4 weeks. In total, OR had better but not significant clinical outcomes. |
| 7 | Ricci M. [47] | SA | YES | Both types of toothbrush had significant results on clinical parameters compared to baseline (p < 0.001). Moreover, it is declared in the results that SA significantly reduced Plaque Index and bleeding score compared to the OR, with a p value < 0.05, but data are not reported completely in the study. |
| 8 | Schmalz G. [48] | SA | / | Both types of toothbrush had significant results on clinical parameters compared to baseline (p < 0.05). Moreover, it is declared that significant differences were found for same parameters, although the changes were just minor. SA groups shown a constant decrease in Gingival Index, plaque and bleeding score while in the OR group the decrease was major at the beginning of observation period. |
| 9 | Schmickler J. [49] | SA | YES | The SA toothbrush had a significant better influence on Gingival Index and bleeding over OR group if the toothbrush is not replaced after a period of 4 months. Both type of toothbrush head loss the effectiveness in removing plaque after a period of 16—24 weeks. |
| 10 | Starke M. [50] | SA | YES | SA toothbrush was statistically superior to the OR in reducing gingival inflammation, gingival bleeding, after a timing of 14 and 42 days of home use. |
| 11 | Williams K. [51] | OR | YES | OR toothbrush had significant efficient results in reducing plaque and gingival inflammation but the data are reported incompletely. |
| 12 | Zimmer S. [52] | OR | NO | OR and SA toothbrush had significant better results than manual toothbrush in reducing plaque and bleeding but differences between the two powered toothbrushes was not significative. |
* = In clinical study, especially in dentistry and oral hygiene, to indicate the common outcome, very small numbers are often used, for example 3 mm of probing depth, 1 mm of marginal bone loss, etc. Example of a very common result case: Treatment 1 had a mean gain of 0.4 mm and Treatment 2 had a mean gain of 0.2 mm but together with this value, the standard deviation is visible to indicate to the reader the variation in the sample. T-student is a simple statistic test used to compare two variables; it considers all mean values of the two groups to indicate if the results, despite very small numerical value, are significant or not. If only percentage is used between the two values, Treatment 1 has double the benefits of Treatment 2. It is acceptable and recommended to calculate the percentage of Treatment 1 and 2 compared to the baseline outcome, but it is not correct to calculate the percentage of Treatment 2 to check the significance of the results.