Comparative Evaluation of Plaque Removal Efficiency of Electric, Manual, and Sonic Toothbrushes in Children Aged 6 To 12 Years: A Randomized Controlled Trial
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52783/jns.v14.1989Keywords:
Dental Plaque, Toothbrushing, Dental Caries, Pediatric Dentistry, Oral HygieneAbstract
Background: Maintaining good oral hygiene in children is crucial for preventing dental caries and gum diseases. Effective plaque removal plays a key role in ensuring optimal oral health, and the type of toothbrush used can significantly influence plaque control. Although manual toothbrushes remain widely used, electric and sonic toothbrushes have gained popularity due to their advanced cleaning mechanisms. However, limited research has compared the effectiveness of these toothbrush types in younger children.
Aim: To assess and compare the plaque removal efficacy of manual, electric, and sonic toothbrushes in children aged 6 to 12 years.
Materials and Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted among 78 children, categorized into three groups: manual, electric, and sonic toothbrush users. All participants followed the Bass brushing technique for two minutes under supervision. Plaque Index (PI), Patient Hygiene Performance (PHP) Index, and Decayed, Missing, and Filled Teeth (DMFT) Index were measured at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months. Anxiety levels were evaluated using Ayesha’s Oddbods Anxiety Scale. Data analysis was carried out using SPSS software version 27.
Results: The manual toothbrush group showed a significant increase in GI (0.35 ± 0.485 to 2.42 ± 0.504 at 3 months) and DMFT (0.62 ± 0.571 to 4.27 ± 2.164 at 3 months), with slight improvement at 6 months (GI: 2.54 ± 0.508, DMFT: 3.46 ± 0.508). The electric toothbrush group demonstrated better plaque control, with GI improving from 1.65 ± 0.485 to 2.46 ± 0.508 and DMFT reducing from 2.50 ± 0.510 to 1.23 ± 0.430 at 6 months. The sonic toothbrush group showed the most significant improvements, with GI decreasing from 1.88 ± 0.653 to 1.50 ± 0.510 and DMFT from 2.50 ± 0.510 to 1.23 ± 0.430 at 6 months. Anxiety levels significantly decreased in the sonic toothbrush group (36.65 ± 7.725 to 22.04 ± 4.521). Statistical analysis (Repeated Measures ANOVA, effect size analysis and Paired t test) confirmed significant differences (p < 0.05) among groups, demonstrating the superior effectiveness of electric and sonic toothbrushes.
Conclusion: Electric and sonic toothbrushes proved more effective than manual toothbrushes in enhancing oral health. Additionally, sonic toothbrushes offered the added benefit of reducing dental anxiety in children.
Downloads
Metrics
References
Dülgergil, Ç. T., & Çolak, H. (2021). Effectiveness of manual and electric toothbrushes in plaque removal in preschool children. Eur J Pediatr Dent, 22(4), 273-278.
Gül, G., Ozturk, B., & Ceylan, M. (2022). The impact of parental supervision on children’s toothbrushing efficiency. Int J Paediatr Dent, 32(1), 45-52.
Kumar, S., Debnath, N., & Ismail, M. B. (2023). Comparative evaluation of different toothbrushes for plaque control in children. J Clin Pediatr Dent, 47(2), 88-95.
Mandelaris, G. A., Walter, R., & Gallo, J. (2022). Sonic toothbrush efficacy in plaque removal: A randomized clinical trial. Am J Dent, 35(3), 147-153.
Ashinie C, Ramesh R. Dietary Challenges and Nutritional Awareness Among Parents of Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders: A Survey-Based Study. Journal of Neonatal Surgery. 2025;14(4s).
Müller, K., van der Weijden, G., & Slot, D. E. (2023). The effect of powered toothbrushes on dental plaque removal in children: A meta-analysis. Clin Oral Investig, 27(1), 1-14.
Sjögren, K., Matsson, L., & Klingberg, G. (2020). Plaque control in children with manual versus electric toothbrushes: A clinical study. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol, 48(3), 195-202.
Terezhalmy, G. T., Bartizek, R. D., & Biesbrock, A. R. (2021). Sonic versus oscillating-rotating toothbrushes: A comparative clinical trial. J Periodontal Res, 56(5), 687-695.
Zimmer, S., Meißner, G., & Bizhang, M. (2021). Effectiveness of different toothbrush types in reducing plaque and gingivitis: A review. Oral Health Prev Dent, 19(6), 567-576.
American Academy of Pediatric Dentistry. (2023). Guidelines on oral hygiene care in children. Pediatr Dent, 45(3), 90-101.
Aravind, P., Gayathri, R., & Priya, V. V. (2018). Effectiveness of different toothbrush designs in plaque removal in children – A comparative study. Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, 12(3), ZC01-ZC04.
Joshi, N., & Dixit, U. B. (2018). Effectiveness of manual and powered toothbrushes in plaque removal in children: A systematic review. International Journal of Pediatric Dentistry, 28(3), 248-258.
Sasikumar T, Pon Preeja DR. Assessment of Dental Anxiety Reduction Through an Interactive Game App for Children: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Cuestiones de Fisioterapia. 2025 Feb 3;54(3):2562-71.
Fathima A, Ramesh R, Chellappa LR. Development of Cartoon-based Dental Anxiety Scale for Children: Validation and Reliability. International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2024 Sep 12;17(7):796-801.
Kayalvizhi, G., Subha, M., & Priyadharshini, H. (2019). Comparison of manual and powered toothbrushes in plaque removal among children – A randomized controlled trial. International Journal of Oral Health Sciences, 9(2), 89-94.
Lussi, A., & Ganss, C. (2014). Erosive tooth wear: From diagnosis to therapy. Karger Medical and Scientific Publishers.
Mamat, N. A., Mani, S. A., & Danaee, M. (2022). Comparison of plaque removal efficacy of manual, oscillating-rotating, and sonic toothbrushes in children: A randomized controlled trial. Clinical Oral Investigations, 26(4), 2457-2465.
Nekkanti, S., Singh, N., & Chaturvedi, S. (2020). Efficacy of sonic toothbrushes in pediatric patients: A clinical study. Pediatric Dentistry, 42(2), 123-129.
Ramesh R, Sathyaprasad S, Nandan S, Havaldar KS, Antony A. Assessment of Preappointment Parental Counseling on Dental Fear and Anxiety in Children in Pedodontic Dental Operatory: A Randomized Controlled Trial. International Journal of Clinical Pediatric Dentistry. 2024 Mar;17(3):346.
Fathima A, Mahesh R, Ramesh R, Pandurangan KK. Efficiency of a Sensory-Adapted Dental Environment Versus Regular Dental Environment in Neurotypically Healthy Children: A Parallel-Arm Interventional Study. Cureus. 2024 Jun 10;16(6):e62109.
Gurunathan D, Moses J, Arunachalam SK. Knowledge, attitude, and practice of mothers regarding oral hygiene of primary school children in Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India. International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry. 2018 Jul;11(4):338.
Nourallah, H., & Splieth, C. (2004). Influence of parental supervision on plaque removal efficacy in children. European Journal of Paediatric Dentistry, 5(4), 198-202.
Sheikh-Al-Eslamian, S. M., Amini, H., & Zafarmand, A. H. (2014). Comparison of different brushing techniques in children for plaque removal: A clinical trial. Journal of Dentistry for Children, 81(3), 128-134.
Silverman, E., Tinanoff, N., & Green, P. (2004). Effectiveness of powered toothbrushes in reducing plaque and gingivitis in children. Journal of the American Dental Association, 135(1), 65-71.
Mathew MG, Gurunathan D. Assessment Of Preventive Dental Care Among Dental Students In India: A Knowledge, Attitude, And Education Study.
Govindaraju L, Gurunathan D. Effectiveness of chewable tooth brush in children-A prospective clinical study. Journal of clinical and diagnostic research: JCDR. 2017 Mar;11(3):ZC31.
Govindaraj A, Gurunathan D. Comparision of Contamination of Tooth Brush among Dental Students and Patients. Indian Journal of Public Health Research & Development. 2019 Aug 1;10(8).
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
Terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
