Comparison of Powered versus Manual Tooth Brushing for Safety and Efficacy in Patients with Gingivitis: A Randomised, Multicentre Clinical Trial in China
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jul 7, 2025
Oral Health Assessment by Lay Personnel for Older Adults
Published on: February 2, 2020
Objective:
To evaluate the effects of powered and manual tooth brushing on gingival inflammation in a Chinese population with mild to moderate gingivitis.
Methods:
The present randomised, single-blind, parallel clinical trial was conducted in five cities in China. Generally healthy participants aged 18 to 65 years, who were non-smokers and had at least 20 sites of gingival bleeding, were included as eligible subjects. The subjects were randomly assigned to either the powered tooth brushing (PTB) group or standard manual tooth brushing (MTB) group. All subjects were supplied with a fluoride-containing toothpaste, Gingival Bleeding Index (GBI), Modified Gingival Index (MGI) and the Turesky modification of the Quigley-Hein Plaque Index (MPI) were used to evaluate the outcomes.
Results:
A total of 235 subjects completed the study, 118 in the PTB group and 117 in the MTB group. The mean age and sex distribution for the PTB and MTB groups were 34.40 ± 9.99 years, 89 women and 29 men, and 34.20 ± 10.14 years, 82 women and 35 men, respectively. After 6 months, the percentage decrease in MGI was 26.150% ± 26.897% for the PTB group and 14.768% ± 38.544% for the MTB group (P = 0.0092). Statistically significant differences between types of tooth brushing were also observed at 6 months for GBI, and at all time points for MPI.
Conclusion:
Tooth brushing with a powered toothbrush twice a day was shown to be more effective than use of a manual toothbrush in reducing gingival inflammation, gingival bleeding and surface plaque after a 6-month period. Both kinds of toothbrushes were safe for the oral tissues.
