Dental Plaque Removal by Ultrasonic Toothbrushes
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Technical Background
3. Hydrodynamic Effects Involved in Toothbrushing
4. Conclusions and Prospects
5. Methodological Remarks
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Colombo, A.P.V.; Souto, R.M.d.; da Silva-Boghossian, C.M.; Miranda, R.; Lourenço, T.G.B. Microbiology of Oral Biofilm-Dependent Diseases: Have We Made Significant Progress to Understand and Treat These Diseases? Curr. Oral Health Rep. 2015, 37–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Saini, R.; Saini, S.; Sharma, S. Biofilm: A dental microbial infection. J. Nat. Sci. Biol. Med. 2011, 71–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Boles, B.R.; Thoendel, M.; Singh, P.K. Self-generated diversity produces ‚insurance effects‘ in biofilm communities. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2004, 16630–16635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sharma, D.; Misba, L.; Khan, A.U. Antibiotics versus biofilm: An emerging battleground in microbial communities. Antimicrob. Resist. Infect. Control 2019, 8, 76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Mah, T.-F. Biofilm-specific antibiotic resistance. Future Microbiol. 2012, 1061–1072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Souza, J.C.M.; Mota, R.R.C.; Sordi, M.B.; Passoni, B.B.; Benfatti, C.A.M.; Magini, R.S. Biofilm Formation on Different Materials Used in Oral Rehabilitation. Braz. Dent. J. 2016, 27, 141–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Busscher, H.; van der Mei, H. Physico-Chemical Interactions in Initial Microbial Adhesion and Relevance for Biofilm Formation. Adv. Dent. Res. 2017, 24–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kolenbrander, P.E.; London, J. Ecological Significance of Coaggregation among Oral Bacteria. In Advances in Microbial Ecology; Hrsg, K.C.M., Ed.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 1992; pp. 183–217. [Google Scholar]
- Chenicheri, S.; Usha, R.; Ramachandran, R.; Thomas, V.; Wood, A. Insight into Oral Biofilm: Primary, Secondary and Residual Caries and Phyto-Challenged Solutions. Open Dent. J. 2017, 312–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shah, S.R.; Tatara, A.M.; D’Souza, R.N.; Mikos, A.G.; Kasper, F.K. Evolving strategies for preventing biofilm on implantable materials. Mater. Today 2013, 177–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aruni, A.W.; Dou, Y.; Mishra, A.; Fletcher, H.M. The Biofilm Community: Rebels with a Cause. Curr. Oral Health Rep. 2015, 48–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yaacob, M. Powered versus manual toothbrushing for oral health. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Schmidt, J.C.; Zaugg, C.; Weiger, R.; Walter, C. Brushing without brushing?—A review of the efficacy of powered toothbrushes in noncontact biofilm removal. Clin. Oral Investig. 2013, 687–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- van Leeuwen, M.P.C.; van der Weijden, F.A.; Slot, D.E.; Rosema, M.A.M. Toothbrush wear in relation to toothbrushing effectiveness. Int. J. Dent. Hyg. 2019, 77–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ausenda, F. The Effect of the Bass Intrasulcular Toothbrushing Technique on the Reduction of Gingival Inflammation: A Randomized Clinical Trial. J. Evid. Based Dent. Pract. 2019, 106–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Shilpa, M.; Jain, J.; Shahid, F.; Gufran, K.; Sam, G.; Khan, M.S. Efficacy of Three Types of Plaque Control Methods During Fixed Orthodontic Treatment: A Randomized Controlled Trial. J. Pharm. Bioallied Sci. 2019, S246–S251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anas, B. A-singlebrushing-study-to-compare-plaque-removal-efficacy-of-a-manual-toothbrush-an-electric-toothbrush-and-an-ultrasonic-toothbru. J. Oral Hyg. Health 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rosema, M.; Hennequin-Hoenderdos, N.; Berchier, C.; Slot, D.; Lyle, D.; Weijden, G. The effect of different interdental cleaning devices on gingival bleeding. J. Int. Acad. Periodontol. 2011, 13, 2–10. [Google Scholar]
- Sharma, P.; Gibcus, M.; van der Mei, H.; Busscher, H. Influence of Fluid Shear and Microbubbles on Bacterial Detachment from a Surface. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2005, 3668–3673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Robinson, P. Manual versus powered toothbrushing for oral health. Cochrane Database Syst. Rev. 2005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Busscher, H.J.; Jager, D.; Finger, G.; Schaefer, N.; van der Mei, H.C. Energy transfer, volumetric expansion, and removal of oral biofilms by non-contact brushing. Eur. J. Oral Sci. 2010, 177–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lucas, M.; Gachagan, A.; Cardoni, A. Research applications and opportunities in power ultrasonics. Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part C J. Mech. Eng. Sci. 2009, 2949–2965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, Y.-J.; Paik, J.-H.; Lee, J.-B.; Choi, S.-J. Development of a Piezoelectric Ultrasonic Tooth-whitening Apparatus. Trans. Electr. Electron. Mater. 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Bock, R.T. Ultrasonic toothbrush. United States Patent US5138733, 8 August 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Brewer, G.K. Ultrasonic Toothbrushes employing an Acoustic Waveguide. United States Patent US20070157404, 2 July 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Erriu, M. Microbial biofilm modulation by ultrasound: Current concepts and controversies. Ultrason. Sonochem. 2014, 15–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Saruttichart, T.; Chantarawaratit, P.; Leevailoj, C.; Thanyasrisung, P.; Pitiphat, W.; Matangkasombut, O. Effectiveness of a motionless ultrasonic toothbrush in reducing plaque and gingival inflammation in patients with fixed orthodontic appliances. Angle Orthod. 2016, 279–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Costa, M.; Silva, V.; Miqui, M.; Sakima, T.; Spolidorio, D.; Cirelli, J. Efficacy of Ultrasonic, Electric and Manual Toothbrushes in Patients with Fixed Orthodontic Appliances. Angle Orthod. 2007, 361–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zimmer, S.; Nezhat, V.; Bizhang, M.; Seemann, R.; Barthel, C. Clinical efficacy of a new sonic/ultrasonic toothbrush. J. Clin. Periodontol. 2002, 496–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mourad, P.; Roberts, F.; McInnes, C. Synergistic use of ultrasound and sonic motion for removal of dental plaque bacteria. Compend. Contin. Educ. Dent. 2007, 28, 354–358. [Google Scholar]
- Roberts, F.; Hacker, B.; Oswald, T.; Mourad, P.; McInnes, C. Evaluation of the use of ultrasound within a power toothbrush to dislodge oral bacteria using an in vitro Streptococcus mutans biofilm model. Am. J. Dent. 2010, 23, 65–69. [Google Scholar]
- Takenouchi, A.; Matsukubo, T.; Matsukubo, M. Effects of Ultrasound and Sonic Toothbrushes on Oral Hygiene Status. J. Oral Hyg. Health 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Forgas-Brockmann, L.B.; Carter-Hanson, C.; Killoy, W.J. The effects of an ultrasonic toothbrush on plaque accumulation and gingival inflammation. J. Clin. Periodontol. 1998, 375–379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lv, J.; Guo, B.; Ling, J. A 6-month clinical evaluation of a high frequency sonic toothbrush in comparison with an oscillating-rotting power toothbrush and a traditional sonic toothbrush in reducing gingivitis and plaque. Am. J. Dent. 2018, 31, 171–176. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Biesbrock, A.; He, T.; Walters, P.; Bartizek, R. Clinical evaluation of the effects of a sonic toothbrush with ultrasound waveguide in disrupting plaque with and without bristle contact. Am. J. Dent. 2008, 21, 83–87. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
- Shinya, H. Effect of pulsed ultrasound toothbrush on Streptococcus mutans biofilm removal. Am. J. Dent. 2018, 31, 67–70. [Google Scholar]
- Lyle, D. Use of a water flosser for interdental cleaning. Compend. Contin. Educ. Dent. 2011, 32, 80–82. [Google Scholar]
- Goyal, C.; Lyle, D.; Qaqish, J.; Schuller, R. Comparison of water flosser and interdental brush on reduction of gingival bleeding and plaque: A randomized controlled pilot study. J. Clin. Dent. 2016, 27, 61–65. [Google Scholar]
- Jolkovsky, D.; Lyle, D. Safety of a Water Flosser: A Literature Review. Compend. Contin. Educ. Dent. 2015, 36, 146–147. [Google Scholar]
- Goyal, C.R.; Qaqish, J.G.; Schuller, R.; Lyle, D. Comparison of a Novel Sonic Toothbrush to a Traditional Sonic Toothbrush and Manual Brushing and Flossing on Plaque, Gingival Bleeding and Inflammation: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial. Compend. Contin. Educ. Dent. 2018, 39, 8–13. [Google Scholar]
- Zhang, X.; Sorrentino, A.; Daep, C.; Wu, Z. Ultrasonic System and Method for Detecting a Biofilm on a Tooth. United States Patent WO2019099312, 23 May 2019. [Google Scholar]
Type of Toothbrush | Mode of Action | Frequency of Movement | Examples |
---|---|---|---|
Lateral motion | The brush head moves forth and back | 300 to 600 min−1 | Oral-B 35 |
Counter oscillation | Adjacent tufts of bristles (usually six to ten) rotate in one direction and then counter-rotate in the opposite direction | Up to 48,000 min−1 | Oral-B Ultra Plaque Remover |
Rotation oscillation | The whole brush head is rotating in one direction and then the other | Up to 62,000 min−1 | Oral-B Triumph, Oral-B vitality 2D |
Circular | Brush head rotates in only one direction | 24,000—48,000 min−1 | Philips Sonicare |
Ionic | An electrical charge is applied to the tooth surface by generating ions in the oral cavity | Up to 31,000 min−1 | Dr. Tung’s |
Water flosser | A targeted stream of water removes plaque, food particles. | 1200–1400 min−1 | Sidekick® (Water Pik, Inc); Oral irrigator (Panasonic Co.) |
Ultrasound | The filaments of the brush head vibrating at ultrasound frequencies | mostly 108 min−1 (corresponds to 1.6 MHz) | Ultrasonex, Curaprox |
Name, Year | Methodology | Participants | Intervention | Result |
---|---|---|---|---|
Forgas–Brockmann, 1998 | Examination on day 0, 15 and 30 2 groups Scoring by GI, BI, PI 1 | n = 62 at least 16 healthy teeth no orthodontic appliances PI ≥ 2; BI ≥ 0.5 | Ultrasonex Ultrasound 1.6 MHz Oral-B Sonic | Both showed a reduction of gingival inflammation (GI) No significant difference |
Zimmer, 2002 | Examination on day 0, 30 and 60 2 groups Scoring by PI 1, API 1 | n = 64, 32 male, 32 female | Ultra Sonex Ultima Ultrasound vs. Manual | The ultrasonic toothbrush showed significantly better removal of plaque. |
Saruttichart, 2017 | Examination on day 30, then switch to other toothbrushes for further 30 days. 2 groups Scoring by PI 1, GI 1, amount of S. mutans | n = 25 patients with orthodontic appliances | Comparison of modes: Manual Ultrasonic Motionless Ultrasonic | The manual toothbrush performed better, but no difference in S. mutans removal |
Costa, 2006 | Examination on day 15 (own toothbrush), switch to a new toothbrush and examine on day 30 (1/3 toothbrush), 45 (own toothbrush), etc. 3 groups Scoring by PI 1, GI 1, amount of S. mutans | n = 21 patients with orthodontic appliances with instructions Group 1: ultrasonic/sonic/manual Group 2: manual/US/sonic Group 3: sonic/manual/US | Ultra Sonex Ultima Ultrasound Oral-B 3D Sonic Oral-B 30 manual | 3D and Ultima removed S. mutans better than the manual brush. Ultima showed significantly higher PI scores on the bracket side. No difference in reducing GI 1 or amount of S. mutans |
Goyal, 2007 | Examination on day 30 2 groups Scoring by oral examination and questionnaires | n = 53 n = 26: US 1 n = 27: manual Restrictions: Mild to moderate gingivitis (GI ≥ 1.5) Minimum of 18 natural teeth | Ultreo Ultrasound Oral-B 35-MTB Manual | Oral examination: No significant differences in GI All groups showed a significant reduction in gingival inflammation Ultrasound scored better by GI in comparison to the manual toothbrush |
Name, Year | Methodology | Intervention | Result |
---|---|---|---|
Biesbrock, 2008 | 4 groups, n = 31 1 Group: 2 min brushing with US, with instructions 2 Group: 2 min brushing without ultrasound 3 Group: 2 min holding by a professional dentist at a 3 mm distance 4 Group (Control) Rubbing of toothpaste without a toothbrush Scoring by API 1 | Ultrasound Compared modes: Motionless and active | US showed significantly better performance in plaque removal compared to the control group (p < 0.001). Group 4 and 3 showed no difference. The first group compared to the second group had a 12.4% higher plaque removal score (p < 0.001) |
Anas, 2018 | n = 50 students at a dental school in good general health 12 h no oral hygiene before start | Curaprox CHS Mode: soft With 32,000 to 42,000 oscillations/min Oral-B vitality 2D Rotational-oscillatory Colgate Extra clean manual | All brushes showed a reduction of the plaque index US and sonic performed significantly better than the manual brush Difference between US and sonic is not significant |
Name, Year | Methodology | Intervention | Result |
---|---|---|---|
Mourad, 2007 | Examination of Streptococcus mutans adherent to various surfaces | Self-prepared toothbrush: Ultrasound and sonic processes can be individually modified and applied | The combination of both showed the successful removal of S. mutans |
Sorensen, 2008 | Examination of the tooth surface and restoration integrity using scanning electron microscopy n = 60 of human molars n = 33: orthodontic n = 32: crown | Ultreo Ultrasound Oral-B Triumph Oscillating-rotating Oral-B 35 Manual Unbrushed (control) | No safety concerns with any treatment-related to orthodontic or crown appliances were identified |
Horiuchi, 2018 | Examination after 3 min non-contact brushing. Measurement of water-insoluble glucan and residual biofilm observed by scanning electron microscopy | Compared modes: 1 pulsed ultrasound with sonic vibration 2 continuous ultrasound waves with sonic vibration 3 sonic vibration only 4 no ultrasound nor sonic vibration (control) | The most reduction showed mode 1. Sonic and ultrasonic treatment was significantly better than the manual. Ultrasound showed no significantly better removal than the oscillatory-rotary mode. |
Robert, 2010 | Single-brushing study Examination of biofilm adherent on apatite disks using digital image analysis Without contact of bristles A distance of 3 mm | Compared modes: 1 sonic and ultrasonic vibration 2 only sonic vibration of the ultrasonic toothbrush 3 normal sonic vibration 4 oscillatory-rotary action 5 held in toothpaste | All modes exhibited some removal of biofilm The combined mode 1 with the ultrasound showed the greatest reduction. |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Digel, I.; Kern, I.; Geenen, E.M.; Akimbekov, N. Dental Plaque Removal by Ultrasonic Toothbrushes. Dent. J. 2020, 8, 28. https://doi.org/10.3390/dj8010028
Digel I, Kern I, Geenen EM, Akimbekov N. Dental Plaque Removal by Ultrasonic Toothbrushes. Dentistry Journal. 2020; 8(1):28. https://doi.org/10.3390/dj8010028
Chicago/Turabian StyleDigel, Ilya, Inna Kern, Eva Maria Geenen, and Nuraly Akimbekov. 2020. "Dental Plaque Removal by Ultrasonic Toothbrushes" Dentistry Journal 8, no. 1: 28. https://doi.org/10.3390/dj8010028
APA StyleDigel, I., Kern, I., Geenen, E. M., & Akimbekov, N. (2020). Dental Plaque Removal by Ultrasonic Toothbrushes. Dentistry Journal, 8(1), 28. https://doi.org/10.3390/dj8010028