Skip to content

Manual versus sonic powered tooth brushing in patients with intellectual disability (Cepillado manual versus cepillado eléctrico para la salud oral en pacientes con discapacidad intelectual leve y moderada)

Manual versus sonic powered tooth brushing in patients with intellectual disability: a randomised clinical trial

Status
Active, not recruiting
Phases
Unknown
Study type
Interventional
Source
ISRCTN
Registry ID
ISRCTN16336355
Enrollment
60
Registered
2015-07-24
Start date
2013-09-01
Completion date
Unknown
Last updated
2020-02-03

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Periodontal health Digestive System Gingivitis and periodontal diseases

Interventions

Treatment groups Monitors of the respective support groups were informed of the assignment, and trained before the study (two training sessions with the investigators, with both theore

Sponsors

Philips Oral Healthcare
Lead Sponsor

Eligibility

Sex/Gender
All

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: 1. Adults from 18 to 65 years 2. Having ID (Schalock et al. 2010) categorized as limit [intelligence quotient (IQ), <70], mild (IQ 50-69), or moderate (35-49) 3. Being part of psychosocial support groups under the supervision of a trained monitor (special educators, with different university degrees in Pedagogy)

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: 1. Pregnancy or breastfeeding 2. Less than 18 teeth 3. Orthodontic treatment at the time of recruitment

Design outcomes

Primary

MeasureTime frame
The primary outcome variable was the gingival index (Loe & Silness 1963), which was evaluated at four sites per tooth in two randomly (by coin toss) selected quadrants (one in the upper jaw, one in the lower jaw, contralateral) (Bentley & Disney 1995), by a single calibrated and trained examiner, blinded to the group allocation.

Secondary

MeasureTime frame
1. The plaque index (PlI) (Silness & Loe 1964) was evaluated in the same way 2. The presence of calculus (Ccl) was evaluated at the same teeth and sites, dichotomously 3. The presence of adverse effects was assessed by a visual inspection at each study visit

Countries

Spain

Outcome results

None listed

Source: ISRCTN (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: Feb 4, 2026