Cross‐angled versus flat‐trim bristle tuft configurations in manual toothbrushes: A systematic review

Abstract

AbstractAimThis systematic review synthesizes and evaluates the literature regarding the effect of manual toothbrushes (MTBs) with cross‐angled bristle tufts (CA‐TB) compared to flat‐trim (FT‐TB) configurations on plaque scores and parameters of gingival health in adult patients.Materials and MethodsPubMed‐MEDLINE and Cochrane‐CENTRAL databases were searched, from their insertion up to August 1st, 2023, to detect appropriate papers. Clinical trials involving adult patients without periodontitis who performed self‐brushing were eligible for inclusion. Primary outcome parameters included plaque, bleeding, and gingival scores. Secondary outcomes encompassed signs of soft and hard tissue abnormalities. A descriptive analysis was conducted. When feasible, a meta‐analysis was performed using either the ‘fixed’ or ‘random effects’ model, as appropriate.ResultsNine eligible papers were retrieved, presenting 20 comparisons. There was considerable heterogeneity in the clinical and methodological design aspects of the included studies. In the descriptive analysis, eight out of 12 comparisons demonstrated a difference in plaque removal performance in favour of the CA‐TB. However, data regarding bleeding and gingival index scores were inconclusive. A meta‐analysis was performed on plaque, bleeding, and gingival index scores, including different indices used for scoring. The meta‐analysis of short‐term studies showed a medium effect statistically significant difference in the reduction of plaque scores in favour of the CA‐TB (SMD = 0.75; 95% CI (0.51; 0.99)), but this was not substantiated in longer‐term studies (SMD = −0.06; 95% CI(−0.44; 0.31)). No adverse events were described in any group.ConclusionWithin the limitations of the present study design, short‐term evaluations, as assessed with various plaque indices, show a weak certainty in favour of the cross‐angled toothbrush over the flat‐trim toothbrush. However, based on longer‐term evaluations, there is insufficient support due to the inconsistent outcomes of the analysis.