Power toothbrushes: a critical review.

Power toothbrushes: a critical review.
复制标题

电动牙刷:批判性评论。

DOI:
10.1111/j.1601-5037.2004.00048.x
复制
发表时间:
2004
影响因子:
2.4
通讯作者:
C. Penick
C. Penick
中科院分区:
医学4区
文献类型:
--
作者:
C. Penick

文献摘要

被引文献

相似文献

虽然第一支牙刷被认为在公元1000年左右就被使用了,但刷牙直到1945年之后才在美国流行起来。自1960年推出电动牙刷以来,大量研究将电动牙刷的安全性和有效性与手动牙刷进行了比较。人们普遍认为电动牙刷和手动牙刷一样安全;然而,研究表明,关于电动牙刷去除牙菌斑的功效,结论明显不同。Cochrane报告最近对这一主题的修订得出结论,唯一一种比手动牙刷去除菌斑更多的电动牙刷是具有旋转振荡运动的牙刷。他们的结论是基于对1964至2001年间发表的29项研究的回顾,这些研究总共有2547名参与者。所有这些研究都使用了相似的研究设计标准。Cochrane的结论与1996年在荷兰进行的一项研究一致。到目前为止,关于电动牙刷的许多相互矛盾的研究结论都是使用不同的研究设计标准的结果。虽然牙科专业渴望以证据为基础的研究,但很明显,牙科学校需要在其课程中增加关注程度,以解决研究设计的纪律技术,以协调报告的研究结果中的巨大差异。
Although the first toothbrush is thought to have been used in about 1000 ad, tooth brushing in America did not gain popularity until after 1945. The introduction of the powered toothbrush in 1960 has led to a large number of studies comparing the safety and efficacy of powered toothbrushes to manual toothbrushes. There is a general agreement that powered toothbrushes are as safe as manual toothbrushes; however, studies show significantly differing conclusions regarding the efficacy of power toothbrushes for the removal of plaque. The recent amendment of the Cochrane report on this subject concluded that the only type of powered toothbrush that removes more plaque than a manual toothbrush is one with rotational oscillation movement. Their conclusion was based on the review of 29 published studies, conducted between 1964 and 2001, with a total of 2547 participants. All these studies used similar research design criteria. The Cochrane conclusion is in agreement with a 1996 study carried out in the Netherlands. Many of the conflicting study conclusions, to date, on powered toothbrushes, are the result of using differing study design criteria. While the dental profession desires evidence-based research, it is clear that dental schools will need to increase the level of attention in their curriculum to address disciplined techniques for research design in order to reconcile the large variances in reported research results.