Efficiency of Chewable Toothbrush in Reduction of Dental Plaque in Students

Rasa Mladenovic; Andrijana Cvetkovic; Brankica Martinovic; Kristina Mladenovic; Milan Zivkovic; Zoran Arsic; Sasa Mladenovic; Tanja Zecevic Lukovic; Dragana Dakovic

Disclosures

BMC Oral Health. 2019;19(58) 

In This Article

Results

Before brushing, the average TQHI value for Fuzzy Brush brushes was 2.8 ± 0.3, while TePe Classic was 2.7 ± 0.3, which was not a statistically significant difference (p = 0.448). After brushing, the average TQHI value for Fuzzy Brush brushes was 2.0 ± 0.1, while TePe Classic 2.0 ± 0.3, which was also not statistically significant (p = 0.729) (Table 2).

Observing plaque index values for the tooth surfaces in the upper jaw, there was a statistically significant change in the plaque volume over time in both groups (p < 0,001). In the observed period, there was no statistically significant difference in plaque index values in examined toothbrushes (p = 0.254). The intergroup comparison revealed statistically significant change in plaque volume in the observed period (p = 0.013) (Figure 4a).

Figure 4.

a TQHI score in upper jaw, b lower jaw

Overall observation of the plaque index values on the tooth surfaces in the lower jaw reveals a statistically significant change in plaque volume over time in both groups (p < 0.001). There was a statistically significant difference between groups in plaque volume values (p = 0.002), however, intergroup comparison revealed no change in plaque volume values in the observed period (p = 0.198) (Figure 4b).

Regarding the plaque index measured on the front teeth, there was a statistically significant change in plaque volume over time in both groups (p < 0.001). In the observed period there was no statistically significant difference in plaque volume values (p = 0.684). The intergoup comparison revealed no statistically significant change in plaque volume values in the observed period (p = 0.993) (Figure 5a).

Figure 5.

a TQHI score in front teeth, b lateral teeth

In the case of lateral teeth, there was a statistically significant change in the amount of plaque in time in both groups (p < 0.001). Overall, there was no statistically significant difference in plaque volume values between the groups (p = 0.822); intergroup comparison revealed no change in plaque volume values in the observed period (p = 0.191) (Figure 5b).

In the oral teeth surfaces, there was a statistically significant change in plaque volume over time in both groups (p < 0.001). Overall, there was no statistically significant difference in plaque volume values between the groups in the observed period (p = 0.685); intergroup comparison for plaque volume in the observed period did not reveal significant statistical change (p = 0.107) (Figure 6a).

Figure 6.

a TQHI score of oral surface, b buccal surface

Concerning the buccal surfaces of the teeth, there was statistically significant change in plaque volume values over time (p < 0.001). In the observed period, there was no statistically significant difference in plaque values between the groups (p = 0.284). The intergroup comparison for plaque volume in the observed period did not reveal significant statistical change (p = 0.804) (Figure 6b).

Observing all teeth surfaces included in the TQHI index, there was a statistically significant change in plaque volume over time in both groups (p < 0.001). In the observed period, there was no statistically significant difference in plaque volume values between the groups (p = 0.708). The intergroup comparison for plaque volume in the observed period did not reveal significant statistical change (p = 0.408) (Figure 7).

Figure 7.

TQHI score of all teeth surfaces

Comments

3090D553-9492-4563-8681-AD288FA52ACE

processing....