Special Needs Patients

Some studies have examined the use of automatic toothbrushes on clients with special needs such as those with orthodontic banding or dental implants.11-16 Ho et al. and White both studied non-compliant adolescents in orthodontic treatment. Ho et al. found a sonic brush reduced PI, BOP, PD, and gram negative bacteria better than a manual brush, while White found the sonic brush to also reduce PI and MPBI on anterior teeth.11,14 Heintze et al. compared rotary, counterrotational, and oscillating brushes to a manual brush, floss, and interdental cleaning. In this study, the rotary device removed 23% more plaque than the other brushes and 34% more plaque than a manual brush. There were no statistical differences between the products for bleeding.13 Conversely, orthodontic clients who compared automatic, counter-rotational, and rotary brushes to a manual brush demonstrated the greatest reduction in clinical parameters with the manual brush.12

Recently, Truhlar et al. completed a six-year evaluation of a counter-rotational powered toothbrush in the maintenance of implants. They found that the powered brush was significantly better at reducing the PI and GI than traditional methods.15 In a 24-week study, Wolff et al. compared a sonic and a manual brush on clients with implants. While the sonic brush significantly reduced PI and BI, it was not significantly better than the manual brush at reducing GI or PD. Importantly, though, the sonic brush was deemed safe for use on implants.16