Comparison of the clinical effectiveness of a single and a triple-headed toothbrushes in a population of mentally retarded patients

Authors

  • E Sauvetre
  • A Rozow
  • H de Meel
  • A Richebe
  • M Abi-Khalil
  • F Demeure

Keywords:

dental hygiene, population of mentally retarded, triple-headed toothbrushes

Abstract

Tooth brushing is a very simple and effective method for removing daily dental deposits and for preventing dental and periodontal diseases. However, it can cause considerable manipulative difficulties among some populations, e.g., young children, physically handicapped and mentally retarded patients. In order to test and compare the efficiency of a newly designed toothbrush (Superbrush® 1 ), we have performed a pilot study on patients staying at the «Reine Fabiola Village N° 1», an institution for patients who are followed for mental retardation at different levels. 30 patients were included in the study, aged between 18 to 40 years. Among these 30, five had to be eliminated for their incapacity to follow the initial training in how to brush their teeth. The comparison was made with a normal single headed tooth brush, in a double blind trial, based on bleeding and plaque indexes, performed on 6 different teeth on day 0,7 and 21. The results of this study indicate that there is no significant difference between the two types of toothbrushes with respect to the ability of plaque removing and gingivitis prevention, during the period of time of this study. However, the easiness of manipulating this newly designed toothbrush renders it a useful tool for the dental hygiene for this special part of the dental compromised population.

Downloads

Published

2020-04-17

Issue

Vol. 38 No. 3-4 (1995)

Section

Original Research Articles

License

I hereby certify that the authors of the above manuscript have all:

1. Conceived, planned, and performed the work leading to the report, or interpreted the evidence presented, or both;

2. Written the report or reviewed successive versions and shared in their revisions; and

3. Approved the final version.

Further, I certify that:

1. This work has not been published elsewhere and is not under revision in another journal;

2. Humane procedures have been followed in the treatment of experimental animals (if applicable);

3. Investigations in humans was done in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation or with the Helsinki Declaration (if applicable).

4. This paper has been carefully read by a native English speaker who is familiar with the field of work (this applies to authors who are not fluent in English); and

5. The copyright of the article is transferred from the authors to the Bulletin du Groupement International pour la Recherche Scientifique en Stomatologie et Odontologie upon acceptance of the manuscript.