Effect of a powered and a manual toothbrush in subjects susceptible to gingival recession: A 36‐month randomized controlled clinical study

Abstract

AbstractObjectiveThe objective of this long‐term clinical study was to evaluate the influence of a newly developed powered toothbrush (PT) on the size and number of pre‐existing gingival recessions (GR) in comparison to a manual toothbrush (MT).MethodsThis was a prospective, single‐blind, parallel‐group, randomized controlled clinical study. Participants without periodontitis, but with at least two teeth (index teeth) showing GR ≥2 mm were randomized to brush either twice daily with a MT or with a PT with a linear magnetic drive causing the round brush head to produce gentle micro vibrations along with oscillating‐rotating movements. Primary outcome parameter was the mean change of GR at the index teeth over 36 months.ResultsTotally 87 out of 92 participants completed the study (MT/PT: n = 42/n = 45). At the 36‐month evaluation the mean (standard deviation) change of GR at index teeth differed significantly between MT 0.17 (0.77) and PT −0.10 (0.63) (p = 0.013). Furthermore, the amount of GR sites which improved ≥1 mm or remained stable during the study period did not differ between MT and PT, but the number of sites worsened ≥1 mm was significantly in favour for PT (MT 23 (25.5%) versus PT 10 (10.6%); p = 0.009). A binary logistic regression identified tooth type (OR = 2.991 for pre−/molar (1.096 [95% CI 1.002–8.933]; p = 0.050)) and manual brushing (OR = 3.341 (1.206 [95% CI 1291–8648]; p = 0.013)) as risk factors for recession impairment at the index teeth. There were no differences between groups for adverse events.ConclusionIn a population with pre‐existing gingival recessions and consequently a high risk of developing further recession the PT seems to be favourable with regard to further development of GR.