Model Based vs. Screen-Based Instruction: Improving Plaque Removal with Powered and Manual Toothbrushes in Children

Year 2026, Volume: 53 Issue: 1, 43 - 48, 25.03.2026

Kübra Öztürk Erkartal , Esra Ceren Tuğutlu

https://doi.org/10.52037/eads.2026.0008

https://izlik.org/JA45TP89WP

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to comparatively evaluate the effectiveness of powered and manual toothbrushes in plaque removal. In addition, it sought to determine which of two oral hygiene training techniques, model-based instruction or video demonstration, produced greater improvements in brushing efficiency. Materials and Methods: Forty pediatric patients aged 8–12 years were included. Twenty children received training with powered toothbrushes and twenty with manual toothbrushes. Each group was further divided into two subgroups: one received brushing instruction via video, and the other received model-based instruction. Plaque index measurements were performed using the Silness & Löe Plaque Index at baseline (day 0), day 15, and day 30. The level of statistical significance was set at p<0.05. Results: Forty children (mean age 9.48 years) were randomized and completed the study. Statistical analysis revealed that median plaque scores in the powered toothbrush group were significantly lower than those in the manual toothbrush group. Moreover, the subgroup using powered toothbrushes combined with model-based instruction demonstrated the greatest reduction in plaque levels. Conclusions: Pediatric dentists may recommend powered toothbrushes to their patients, given their superior efficacy in plaque removal. Furthermore, model-based oral hygiene education appears more motivating and effective than video-based instruction, particularly when delivered face-to-face.

Keywords

Oral hygiene instruction , Pediatric dentistry , Plaque index , Powered toothbrush , Toothbrushing

Supporting Institution

Scientific Research Projects Unit of Ankara Yıldırım Beyazıt University

Project Number

2386

References

• Serrano J, Escribano M, Roldan S, Martin C, Herrera D. Efficacy of adjunctive anti-plaque chemical agents in managing gingivitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Periodontol. 2015;42:S106–S138. doi:10.1111/jcpe.12331.
• Gunjan Kumar M. Tooth Brush and Brushing Technique. Journal of Advances in Medicine. 2013;2(1):65–76.
• Westfelt E. Rationale of mechanical plaque control. J Clin Periodontol. 1996;23(3):263–267. doi:10.1111/j.1600-051x.1996.tb02086.x.
• Khocht A, Spindel L, Person P. A comparative clinical study of the safety and efficacy of three toothbrushes. J Periodontol. 1992;63(7):603–610. doi:10.1902/jop.1992.63.7.603.
• Sundell SO, Klein H. Toothbrushing behavior in children: a study of pressure and stroke frequency. Pediatr Dent. 1982;4(3):225–227.
• Davidovich E, Ccahuana-Vasquez RA, Timm H, Grender J, Cunningham P, Zini A. Randomised clinical study of plaque removal efficacy of a power toothbrush in a paediatric population. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2017;27(6):558–567. doi:10.1111/ipd.12298.
• Youcharoen K, Thomngam N, Aranya N, Wongphanthuset Y, Rungruangpattana M, Kaewsutha N. Plaque removal efficacy of triple-headed toothbrush in 4–6-year-old children: a randomized crossover study. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2021;11(5):546–552. doi:10.4103/jispcd.JISPCD_93_21.
• Rosema N, Slot D, van Palenstein Helderman W, Wiggelinkhuizen L, Van der Weijden G. The efficacy of powered toothbrushes following a brushing exercise: a systematic review. Int J Dent Hyg. 2016;14(1):29–41. doi:10.1111/idh.12115.
• Aparna K, Puranik MP, Sowmya K. Powered toothbrush-A review. Int J Health Sci Res. 2018;8(5):299–306.
• Yousaf A, Aman N, Manzoor MA, Yasmin R. COMPARISON OF POWERED AND MANUAL TOOTHBRUSHES IN REMOVAL OF PLAQUE. PODJ. 2012;32(1).
• Lim L, Davies W, Yuen K, Ma M. Comparison of modes of oral hygiene instruction in improving gingival health. J Clin Periodontol. 1996;23(7):693–697. doi:10.1111/j.1600-051x.1996.tb00595.x.
• Anwar AI, Zulkifli A. The influence of demonstration method education in the knowledge of tooth brushing in children age 10–12 years. Enfermería Clínica. 2020;30:429–432. doi:10.1016/j.enfcli.2019.07.132.
• Ashtarian H, Pouladi I, Jalilian F, Almasi A, Abi FA. Comparative study of the effects of two educational interventions of storytelling and roleplaying on tooth brushing method in preschool children of Aleshtar city. Sri Lanka J Child Health. 2021;50(2). doi:10.4038/sljch.v50i2.9565.
• Demiriz L, Dede FO, Balli U. Impact of three different education methods on oral hygiene and theoretical knowledge of schoolchildren. Pesqui Bras Odontopediatria Clin Integr. 2018;18(1):3897. doi:10.4034/PBOCI.2018.181.29.
• Gurav KM, Shetty V, Vinay V, Bhor K, Jain C, Divekar P. Effectiveness of oral health educational methods among school children aged 5–16 years in improving their oral health status: a meta-analysis. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2022;15(3):338. doi:10.5005/jp-journals-10005-2395.
• Tusi SK, Momeni Z, Hamdollahpoor H, Parviz N, Ghorbani M. Evaluating the effectiveness of various teaching methods on dental plaque removal in children: a quasi-experimental study. BMC Pediatr. 2025;25(1):109. doi:10.1186/s12887-025-05438-6.
• Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ. 2010;340:c332. doi:10.1136/bmj.c332.
• DURHAN MA, ULUAKAY M, KARGUL B. The Plaque Removal Effectiveness of Powered and Manual Tooth Brush in Children: A Pilot Study. Cumhuriyet Dental Journal. 2018;21(4):327–334. doi:10.7126/cumudj.480461.
• Silness J, Löe H. Periodontal disease in pregnancy II. Correlation between oral hygiene and periodontal condition. Acta Odontol Scand. 1964;22(1):121–135. doi:10.3109/00016356408993968.
• Rajab LD, Assaf DH, El-Smadi LA, Hamdan AA. Comparison of effectiveness of oral hygiene instruction methods in improving plaque scores among 8-9-year children: a randomized controlled trial. Eur Arch Paediatr Dent. 2022;23(2):289–300. doi:10.1007/s40368-021-00680-9.
• Erbe C, Klees V, Braunbeck F, Ferrari-Peron P, Ccahuana-Vasquez RA, Timm H, et al. Comparative assessment of plaque removal and motivation between a manual toothbrush and an interactive power toothbrush in adolescents with fixed orthodontic appliances: A single-center, examiner-blind randomized controlled trial. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 2019;155(4):462–472. doi:10.1016/j.ajodo.2018.12.013.
• Mareddy AR, Reddy VN, Done V, Rehaman T, Gadekar T, Ammula SP. Comparative Evaluation of Plaque Removal Potential of Manual Electrical and Chewable Toothbrushes in Children: A Clinical Trial. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2024;17(12):1388. doi:10.5005/jp-journals-10005-3006.
• Salama F, Abobakr I, Al-Khodair N, Al-Wakeel M. Evaluation of tablet PC as a tool for teaching tooth brushing to children. Eur J Paediatr Dent. 2016;17(4):327–331.
• Kumar Y, Asokan S, John B, Gopalan T. Effect of conventional and game-based teaching on oral health status of children: a randomized controlled trial. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2015;8(2):123. doi:10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1297.
• Srivastava N, Vasishat A, Gupta G, Rana V. A comparative evaluation of efficacy of different teaching methods of tooth brushing in children contributors. Oral Hyg Health. 2013;1(3):1–4. doi:10.4172/2332-0702.1000118.