ABSTRACT
Objectives: To investigate the most appropriate and adequate time for tooth brushing among orthodontic patients with fixed appliances.
Methods: Two hundred fixed orthodontic appliance patients from various Jordanian orthodontic clinics were randomly assigned to four groups (n=50 for each group) and subjected to different tooth brushing time treatments (T1 =3 min, T2=5 min, T3=7 min, and T4 = 10 min, respectively) using a manual toothbrush. A periodontist examined the patients to assess the plaque index (PI) after they had brushed their teeth with an orthodontic toothbrush for the prescribed amount of time.
Results: A total of 200 patients (36.5% males and 63.5% females) with an average age of 18.1±3.5 years (18.6 ± 4.9 male, 17.7 ± 2.3 female) and ages ranging from 12 to 40 years were included in the study. The results indicated highly significant statistical differences among the treatment groups for PI scores (P-value ≤ 0.05). The PI scores were higher in the T1 group; conversely, the scores were lower and very close in T2, T3, and T4 groups. The Kruskal-Wallis H test revealed that the groups exhibited significant differences with a P-value ≤0.05. The T1 group illustrated 60% good oral hygiene and no excellent oral hygiene, while the T2, T3, and T4 groups showed 88%, 82%, and 86% good oral hygiene in addition to 10%, 14%, and 12% excellent oral hygiene, respectively.
Conclusion: This study demonstrated that the 3 minutes brushing time with a manual orthodontic toothbrush was least effective for orthodontic patients. Contrarily, the 5 minutes brushing time was most effective, advantageous, and acceptable. Therefore, this brushing strategy should be suggested to orthodontic patients with fixed appliances to maintain good oral hygiene.
Keywords: Dental hygiene; fixed appliance; Orthodontic patients; Plaque index; Tooth brushing
JRMS April 2024; 31 (1): 10.12816/0061746
INTRODUCTION
Orthodontic
treatment involves straightening or repositioning teeth in order to enhance
their look and function. During orthodontic treatment, maintaining oral hygiene
is challenging because the archwires, brackets, and other elements may promote
the buildup of plaque and interfere with traditional hygiene practices (1–3).
Therefore,
orthodontic patients are more likely to develop gingivitis (1,4–6). Moreover, they also have a higher
risk of enamel decalcifications that can lead to the formation of caries and
white spots (6–8). Thus, maintaining dental hygiene is
necessary during orthodontic treatment. Professional assistance, patient
motivation, and appropriate tools play a critical role in achieving compliance
during orthodontic treatment (9).
The role
of orthodontic patients' motivation for oral hygiene has not been extensively
studied. The few studies investigating this crucial aspect of oral health
suggested that motivation plays an essential and influential part in reducing
plaque and inflammation (10–12). Orthodontic treatment with fixed
appliances may cause unintended side effects if appropriate measures are not
taken. Among these, incipient carious development is the most common.(10)
Previous
researches indicates that around 25 percent of patients acquire develop
decalcification while receiving treatment with fixed appliances (13,14). This high occurrence is caused by
retention of the plaque due to complexity of orthodontics brackets design which
leading to continued biofilm deposition on tooth surfaces of plaque due to
appliance components that hinder brushing (15). Therefore, different approaches have been
proposed to avert these serious issues (16). The eradication of biofilm is vital to deter the
chances of gingivitis, caries, periodontal disease, and decalcification.
Especially, using fluoride toothpaste can help serve the purpose (17).
Earlier studies have shown that tooth brushing
habits significantly impact oral hygiene parameters (18–20). The current study examines and
compares the effects of different tooth brushing times on the oral hygiene of
orthodontic patients with fixed appliances. This was
achieved by analyzing clinical and oral hygiene parameters using the plaque
index. The previous studies were investigating the type of brushing tools
like manual and electrical tooth brush. Others investigate different tooth
brushing techniques. But there were few studies in literature investigate the
time factor for manual tooth brush for orthodontic patients with multiple
brackets(21) or patients without orthodontic brackets (22–26).and therefor this study aimed to
investigate the most appropriate and effective time for tooth brushing among
orthodontic patients with fixed appliances. Additionally, the effect of tooth
brushing on plaque index (Pl) scores was also explored.
METHODS
A double-blinded randomized clinical trial was
performed in multiple Orthodontic clinics (Royal Medical Services clinics and
Private clinics) in Amman, Karak, and Aqaba cities in Jordan Between June 2018
to March 2021. A total of 200. Participants were allocated to four groups. the
participants were collected from Orthodontics clinics in armed hospital and
private sector and the Dental assistant in each clinic prepare list of all
patients that they will have fixed appliance in the next month and she flip a
coin for each name to be in the study or not then the final name lists were
generated and gather all the patients in specific days so the examiner can be
in these days for examination. the examiner (A.A) were there in the time of
bonding the fixed appliance and the participants and their parents were
informed about the study and verbal consent were taken from them since no
medication or drugs or any intensive procedures were taken verbal consent was
adopted .The patients were handed an envelope mentioning the group number
she/he was assigned to. The random
allocation sequence was block randomization to produce equal sample size
between the groups. The four groups were divided as per the brushing
time (T1-3 minutes (controlled Group), T2-5 minutes, T3-7 minutes, and T4-10
minutes). The patient then utilized one of four time-preprogrammed watches
based on their group. All participants were given a proper tooth brushing
instruction using Charter’s technique with no additive
like interdental brush or mouthwash were used just before distributing them
in to the groups. After brushing their teeth with an orthodontic toothbrush (Foramen
Stander V shape orthodontic toothbrush and foramen toothpaste contain 1040 ppm), patients were examined using WHO
periodontal prob by a periodontist to assess the plaque index for each
participant by examining all presented permanent teeth, which had been included
within fixed orthodontic appliance by brackets or bands. Patient group
assignment was been unveiled to periodontist. The periodontist in this research
(4th author AA) who was familiar with this research was the only examiner for
all patients to reduce intra and inter examiners bias. (A.A)
were the only examiner so only Intra examiner test were performed. (A.A)
were had test for reliability by examining 20 patients prior the research with
the same criteria of the research and kappa coefficient 0.92. The exclusion criteria were smoking, use of
antibiotics or antibacterial mouth rinses in the previous six months,
neurological or psychiatric disorders, physical or mental disability, and
addiction.
In Jordan there were 130 orthodontic specialists
(27) with Maximum number of patients
52000-78000 patients that they can be under active treatments. Jordan
population in 2019 10.1 million with prevalence of (0.8%) (n=Z2 P (1-P)/d2 à n= (1.96)2 * 0.008(1-0.008)/ (0.5)2 à n=12.19 participants).12 participants for each
group enough to be representative .The final sample size taken in this study
were 200 participants (50 participants for each group).
The study
protocol was approved by the Royal Medical Services Ethical Committee board.
The Plaque Index System Scores (28)
§
Score 0: No
plaque
§
Score 1: A film of plaque adhering to the free gingival
margin and adjacent area of the tooth. Plaque can only be seen after applying a
disclosing solution or by using a probe.
·
Score 2: Moderate buildup of soft deposits visible with
the naked eye within the gingival pocket or the tooth and gingival margin.
§
Score 3: Plenty of soft matter in the gingival pocket
and/or on the tooth and gingival margin.
The patients were divided to four groups
according to the total PI score as following(28,29):
Excellent Oral Hygiene (0)
Good Oral Hygiene
(0.1–0.9) Fair Oral Hygiene (1.0–1.9) Poor Oral Hygiene (2.0–3.0)
Statistical analysis
Data were entered and coded using SPSS version
26.0 (Chicago, IL, USA). Values were reported as descriptive, frequency, cross
tabulation, and mean ± standard deviation. The differences in the means of
different groups were analyzed using Kruskal-Wallis H test, and the associations
between variables (Plaque Score, brushing time) were tested using Spearman's
correlation tests. P values of less than or equals 0.05 were deemed
statistically significant.
RESULTS
A total of 200 patients (73 male 36.5%, 127 female 63.5%) with
an average age of 18.1±3.5 years (18.6 ± 4.9 male, 17.7 ± 2.3 female) and ages ranging from
12 to 40 years were included in the study.
The mean plaque index scores for males and females were similar,
with a mean of 0.55±0.35 and 0.54 ±0.43, respectively (Table I). We observed that the PI score was high in the
T1 group. On the other hand, the scores were comparatively low and very close
in the T2, T3, and T4 groups (Table II; Figure 1). To evaluate the differences
across four groups for most effective tooth brushing time was tested using
Kruskal Wallis Test x2(3, n200) =96.25, p<0.05. The study showed a significant difference between T1 group
and other groups .T2, T3, T4 regarding tooth brushing time (P<0.05. the test revealed significant differences
(Asymp.Sig.=.000) in the preference to tooth brushing time (T1 Groupe, n=50; T2
Groupe, n=50; T3 Groupe, n=50; T4 Groupe, n=50) (Table III,Figure 2).
Spearman’s
correlation indicated that there was a statistically significant negative
moderate correlation between study groups and PI score. Rho=-0.375, p<0.001,
N=200 indicating long timing of brushing associated with low PI Score.
Regarding oral
hygiene, interesting observations were recorded. The T1 group illustrated less
oral hygiene among all of the groups. Only 60% of the participants in this
group exhibited good oral hygiene and none showed excellent oral hygiene.
Conversely, the T2, T3, and T4 groups recorded good oral hygiene in 88%, 82%,
and 86% of the cases (Table IV). Moreover, a good percentage of these groups
also possessed excellent oral hygiene (10%, 14%, and 12%, respectively). Thus,
our results depicted highly statistically significant differences among groups
and PI score values with a P-value ≤0.05.
Table I: Mean of
plaque index score of different genders.
Gender
|
Mean
|
N (Total N=200)
|
Std. Deviation
|
Male
|
.5484
|
73
|
.35
|
Female
|
.5395
|
127
|
.43
|
Total
|
.5428
|
200
|
.40
|
Table II:
Mean of plaque index score of different
brushing time groups.
Group
|
N
|
PI
Mean ±(SD)
|
P
value
|
T1
|
50
|
1.03±0.40
|
0.000*
|
T2
|
50
|
.43±0.23
|
T3
|
50
|
.36±0.26
|
T4
|
50
|
.35±0.23
|
Total
|
200
|
|
Spearman's Correlation
|
Correlation Coefficient
= -.375
|
|
* The mean difference is
significant at the 0.05 level.
|
Table
III: Kruskal Wallis H Test & Pairwise comparisons
of groups.
Kruskal-Wallis
Test
|
Ranks
|
|
Group
|
N
|
Mean Rank
|
Plaque Score
|
T1(3 min)
|
50
|
168.40
|
T2(5 min)
|
50
|
91.87
|
T3(7 min)
|
50
|
71.87
|
T4(10 min)
|
50
|
69.86
|
Total
|
200
|
|
Test
Statisticsa,b
|
|
Plaque Score
|
Kruskal-Wallis H
|
96.247
|
Df
|
3
|
Asymp. Sig.
|
.000
|
a. Kruskal
Wallis Test
|
b. Grouping
Variable: Group
|
Pairwise Comparisons of Group
|
Sample 1-Sample 2
|
Test Statistic
|
Std. Error
|
Std. Test Statistic
|
Sig.
|
Adj. Sig.a
|
T4(10 min)-T3(7 min)
|
2.010
|
11.571
|
.174
|
.862
|
1.000
|
T4(10 min)-T2(5 min)
|
22.010
|
11.571
|
1.902
|
.057
|
.343
|
T4(10 min)-T1(3 min)
|
98.540
|
11.571
|
8.516
|
.000
|
.000
|
T3(7 min)-T2(5 min)
|
20.000
|
11.571
|
1.728
|
.084
|
.503
|
T3(7 min)-T1(3 min)
|
96.530
|
11.571
|
8.342
|
.000
|
.000
|
T2(5 min)-T1(3 min)
|
76.530
|
11.571
|
6.614
|
.000
|
.000
|
Each row
tests the null hypothesis that the Sample 1 and Sample 2 distributions are
the same.
Asymptotic significances (2-sided tests)
are displayed. The significance level is .05.
|
a.
Significance values have been adjusted by the Bonferroni correction for
multiple tests.
|
|
Table IV: Distribution
of plaque index score among different groups.
|
Excellent
|
Good
|
Fair
|
Poor
|
Total
|
Group
|
T1(3 min)
|
0
|
30
|
18
|
2
|
50
|
T2(5 min)
|
5
|
44
|
1
|
0
|
50
|
T3(7 min)
|
7
|
41
|
2
|
0
|
50
|
T4(10 min)
|
6
|
43
|
1
|
0
|
50
|
Total
|
18
|
158
|
22
|
2
|
200
|
Figure 1: Distribution
of plaque index score means between different groups of teeth brushing time.
Figure 2: Pairwise Group comparison show correlation
and rank for groups (significance Blue line, Insignificance Red line)
DISCUSSION
Dental plaque is the most common cause of the
prevalence of oral diseases. Therefore, patients with fixed orthodontic
appliances must practice strict oral hygiene to prevent the deposition of
dental plaque.(30)
This
study evaluated the effect of different tooth brushing times by measuring the
PI score in orthodontic patients. The results manifested that the PI score
significantly reduced with increased tooth brushing time. Moreover, a
significant decrease in PI score between T1 and T2, T3, and T4 was recorded;
conversely, the statistical differences among T2, T3, and T4 were
non-significant (Table II),(Fig 1) which show dramatic
change between T1 and the other groups which are close in PI score to each
other’s.
Acharya
et al. (10), Ay et al. (11), and Lalic et al. (12) demonstrated the significance of oral
hygiene motivation in reducing plaque and inflammatory signs in orthodontic
patients. However, previous researches that looked into the association between repeated
oral hygiene index (OHI) and patient motivation (10,31). Nevertheless, Acharya et al and colleagues were explored the
differences among the three motivating methods and did not compare the
effectiveness of recurrent OHI on oral hygiene, differentiating with the
comparing it to a single OHI session at
baseline. Ida and Marinia et al were comparing combination between motivation
with single or multiple repetition (31)
Many
earlier studies (32–36) looked into the effectiveness of various
kinds of toothbrushes in removing plaque in orthodontic patients yielding
conflicting results with some studies suggesting that electric toothbrush is
relatively effective in reducing PI and other authors reporting that electric
and manual toothbrushes are equally effective (33,35,37,38). For patients with fixed
orthodontic appliances, oral hygiene can be performed primarily with a manual
orthodontic toothbrush, with the addition of some additive means such as an
interdental toothbrush for plaque removal in a tight area. Nonetheless, there
is little scientific evidence to support the use of an interdental brush (39–41).
In this
study, we investigated the time factor of tooth brushing and how it affects the
PI score, as well as the minimum time for effective tooth brushing with simple
orthodontic toothbrushes for a patient receiving fixed appliance treatment. This study demonstrated that the T2
group that used 5 minutes tooth brushing offered 98% of patients with excellent
and good oral hygiene with PI score less than 0.50; on the other hand, the T1
group with 3 minutes of tooth brushing illustrated a PI score of more than 1.0
and only 60% of excellent and good oral hygiene. Which
mean more tooth brushing time will lead for better oral hygiene level of
orthodontic patient with at least 5 minutes, less time could be not enough to
have an excellent or good oral hygiene for the majority of patients with fixed
orthodontic appliances. This is agreed with previous research by Wang Te et
al which concluded that is the best brushing time duration were 5-7 minutes.(21)
And the results show in this study go along previous studies which investigate
the tooth brushing duration for non-orthodontic patients that the more time of
brushing more plaque removal.(22–25) Furthermore, there was no
substantial difference among the PI scores of T2, T3, and T4 groups, and their
excellent and good oral hygiene percentage was 98%, 96%, and 98%, respectively.
With these differences between groups T2, T3 and T4
which show little differences in the level of oral hygiene and PI score but all
of them are highly effective.
Overall, the T2 group produced the most
promising results. Therefore, this approach of 5 minutes of minimum of tooth
brushing is suggested for patients receiving fixed orthodontic
treatment.
LIMITATIONS
The PI-scoring system used in
this study is subject to the examiner's subjectivity, even PI system used in this research were the
simplest index for any patients and known by all dentists but it will more
researches used other methods and Indexes which will be more specific for
patients with Multiple fixed brackets like Orthodontic Plaque Index OPI.
CONCLUSION
The results of the present study
showed that the 3 minutes brushing time with a manual orthodontic toothbrush
was least effective for orthodontic
patients. Contrarily, the 5 minutes brushing time
was effective, advantageous, and acceptable as
a minimum brushing time. Moreover, the other two
treatments of 7 and 10 min also offered good oral hygiene with more time of
brushing needed. It is crucial to use an appropriate brushing strategy for orthodontic
patients with fixed appliances to maintain oral
hygiene, and therefore, recommended strategies should be adopted.
Competing Interests
The authors have no competing
interests to declare.
Acknowledgements
No funding sources to acknowledge. The authors would like to
appreciate the assistance of colleagues, internal doctors, and dental and oral
hygienists from the Dental Department /Royal Medical Services and Private
clinics in Aqaba, Karak and Amman for their magnificent collaboration.
REFERENCES
1. Cardoso-Silva
C, Barberia E, Ramos Atance JA, Maroto M, Hernandez A, Garcia-Godoy F.
Microbiological analysis of gingivitis in pediatric patients under orthodontic
treatment. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2011;12(4):210–4.
2. Leung
NM, Chen R, Rudney JD. Oral bacteria in plaque and invading buccal cells of
young orthodontic patients. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial
Orthopedics. 2006;130(6):698-e11.
3. Ristic
M, Svabic MV, Sasic M, Zelic O. Clinical and microbiological effects of fixed
orthodontic appliances on periodontal tissues in adolescents. Orthodontics
& craniofacial research. 2007;10(4):187–95.
4. Bollen
A-M, Cunha-Cruz J, Bakko DW, Huang GJ, Hujoel PP. The effects of orthodontic
therapy on periodontal health: a systematic review of controlled evidence. The
Journal of the American Dental Association. 2008;139(4):413–22.
5. Liu
H, Sun J, Dong Y, Lu H, Zhou H, Hansen BF, et al. Periodontal health and
relative quantity of subgingival Porphyromonas gingivalis during orthodontic
treatment. The Angle Orthodontist. 2011;81(4):609–15.
6. Tanner
ACR, Sonis AL, Lif Holgerson P, Starr JR, Nunez Y, Kressirer CA, et al.
White-spot lesions and gingivitis microbiotas in orthodontic patients. Journal
of dental research. 2012;91(9):853–8.
7. Enaia
M, Bock N, Ruf S. White-spot lesions during multibracket appliance treatment:
a challenge for clinical excellence. American Journal of Orthodontics and
Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2011;140(1):e17–24.
8. Tufekci
E, Dixon JS, Gunsolley JC, Lindauer SJ. Prevalence of white spot lesions
during orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances. The Angle Orthodontist.
2011;81(2):206–10.
9. Van
Der Weijden F, Slot DE. Oral hygiene in the prevention of periodontal
diseases: the evidence. Periodontology 2000. 2011;55(1):104–23.
10. Acharya S, Goyal A, Utreja AK, Mohanty U.
Effect of three different motivational techniques on oral hygiene and gingival
health of patients undergoing multibracketed orthodontics. The Angle
Orthodontist. 2011;81(5):884–8.
11. Ay ZY, Sayın M, Özat Y, Goster T, Atilla
AO, Bozkurt FY. Appropriate oral hygiene motivation method for patients with
fixed appliances. The Angle Orthodontist. 2007;77(6):1085–9.
12. Lalic M, Aleksic E, Gajic M, Milic J,
Malesevic D. Does oral health counseling effectively improve oral hygiene of
orthodontic patients? European journal of paediatric dentistry.
2012;13(3):181–6.
13. Julien KC, Buschang PH, Campbell PM.
Prevalence of white spot lesion formation during orthodontic treatment. The
Angle Orthodontist. 2013;83(4):641–7.
14. Lovrov S, Hertrich K, Hirschfelder U.
Enamel demineralization during fixed orthodontic treatment–incidence and
correlation to various oral-hygiene parameters. Journal of Orofacial
Orthopedics/Fortschritte der Kieferorthopädie. 2007;68(5):353–63.
15. Zachrisson BU. Oral hygiene for
orthodontic patients: current concepts and practical advice. American Journal
of orthodontics. 1974;66(5):487–97.
16. Derks A, Katsaros C, Frencken JE, Van’t
Hof MA, Kuijpers-Jagtman AM. Caries-inhibiting effect of preventive measures
during orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances. Caries research.
2004;38(5):413–20.
17. Wong MCM, Clarkson J, Glenny A-M, Lo ECM,
Marinho VCC, Tsang BWK, et al. Cochrane reviews on the benefits/risks of
fluoride toothpastes. Journal of dental research. 2011;90(5):573–9.
18. Gallagher A, Sowinski J, Bowman J, Barrett
K, Lowe S, Patel K, et al. The effect of brushing time and dentifrice on
dental plaque removal in vivo. American Dental Hygienists’ Association.
2009;83(3):111–6.
19. Peros K, Mestrovic S, Anic-Milosevic S,
Rosin-Grget K, Slaj M. Antimicrobial effect of different brushing frequencies
with fluoride toothpaste on Streptococcus mutans and Lactobacillus species in
children with fixed orthodontic appliances. Korean journal of orthodontics.
2012;42(5):263.
20. Poyato‐Ferrera M, Segura‐Egea JJ,
Bullón‐Fernández P. Comparison of modified Bass technique with normal
toothbrushing practices for efficacy in supragingival plaque removal.
International journal of dental hygiene. 2003;1(2):110–4.
21. Wang T, Bao X, Yang J, Liu S, Hang YU, Min
HU. Influence of different brushing time in oral hygiene in adolescent
orthodontic patients and their clinical significances. Journal of Jilin
University (Medicine Edition). 2017;43(2):375–80.
22. Gallagher A, Sowinski J, Bowman J, Barrett
K, Lowe S, Patel K, et al. The effect of brushing time and dentifrice on
dental plaque removal in vivo. American Dental Hygienists’ Association.
2009;83(3):111–6.
23. Terézhalmy GT, Biesbrock AR, Walters PA,
Grender JM, Bartizek RD. Clinical evaluation of brushing time and plaque
removal potential of two manual toothbrushes. International journal of dental
hygiene. 2008;6(4):321–7.
24. George J, John J. The significance of
brushing time in removing dental plaque. Int J Dentistry Oral Sci.
2016;3(8):315–7.
25. Vakil N, Sachdeva S, Goyal P, Singh A.
Evaluation of Relationship between Time of Manual Tooth-Brushing and Plaque
Removal. 2019;
26. van der Weijden FA, Timmerman MF, Snoek
IM, Reijerse E, van der Velden U. Toothbrushing duration and plaque removing
efficacy of electric toothbrushes. American journal of dentistry.
1996;9:S31-6.
27.JOS. Jordanian Orthodontics Socity
[Internet]. 2022 [cited 2022 Jan 16]. Available from:
https://jos.org.jo/presidents-letter/
28. Silness J, Löe H. Periodontal disease in
pregnancy II. Correlation between oral hygiene and periodontal condition. Acta
odontologica scandinavica. 1964;22(1):121–35.
29. Joybell C, Krishnan R. Comparison of two
brushing methods-Fone’s vs modified bass method in visually impaired children
using the audio tactile performance (ATP) technique. Journal of clinical and
diagnostic research: JCDR. 2015;9(3):ZC19.
30. Nazir MA. Prevalence of periodontal
disease, its association with systemic diseases and prevention. International
journal of health sciences. 2017;11(2):72.
31. Marini I, Bortolotti F, Parenti SI, Gatto
MR, Bonetti GA. Combined effects of repeated oral hygiene motivation and type
of toothbrush on orthodontic patients: a blind randomized clinical trial. The
Angle Orthodontist. 2014;84(5):896–901.
32. Biavati AS, Gastaldo L, Dessı M, Biavati
FS, Migliorati M. Manual orthodontic vs. oscillating-rotating electric
toothbrush in orthodontic patients: a randomised clinical trial. European
journal of paediatric dentistry. 2010;11(1):200–2.
33. Costa MR, Silva VC, Miqui MN, Sakima T,
Spolidorio DMP, Cirelli JA. Efficacy of ultrasonic, electric and manual
toothbrushes in patients with fixed orthodontic appliances. The Angle
Orthodontist. 2007;77(2):361–6.
34. Erbe C, Klukowska M, Tsaknaki I, Timm H,
Grender J, Wehrbein H. Efficacy of 3 toothbrush treatments on plaque removal
in orthodontic patients assessed with digital plaque imaging: a randomized
controlled trial. American Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial
Orthopedics. 2013;143(6):760–6.
35. Hickman J, Millett DT, Sander L, Brown E,
Love J. Powered vs manual tooth brushing in fixed appliance patients: a short
term randomized clinical trial. The Angle Orthodontist. 2002;72(2):135–40.
36. Kaklamanos EG, Kalfas S. Meta-analysis on
the effectiveness of powered toothbrushes for orthodontic patients. American
Journal of Orthodontics and Dentofacial Orthopedics. 2008;133(2):187-e1.
37. Heasman P, Wilson Z, Macgregor I, Kelly P.
Comparative study of electric and manual toothbrushes in patients with fixed
orthodontic appliances. American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial
orthopedics. 1998;114(1):45–9.
38. Thienpont V, Dermaut LR, Van Maele G.
Comparative study of 2 electric and 2 manual toothbrushes in patients with
fixed orthodontic appliances. American journal of orthodontics and dentofacial
orthopedics. 2001;120(4):353–60.
39. Arici S, Alkan A, Arici N. Comparison of
different toothbrushing protocols in poor-toothbrushing orthodontic patients.
The European Journal of Orthodontics. 2007;29(5):488–92.
40. Bock NC, Von Bremen J, Kraft M, Ruf S.
Plaque control effectiveness and handling of interdental brushes during
multibracket treatment—a randomized clinical trial. The European Journal of
Orthodontics. 2010;32(4):408–13.
41. Goh HH, Mauleffinch LMF. Interspace/interdental
brushes for oral hygiene in orthodontic patients with fixed appliances.
Cochrane database of systematic Reviews. 2007;(3).