Figure 1 Different types of tooth brush grip described by Beals et al

Table 1: Frequency distribution of volunteers

Grip

 

Frequency

Percent

Distal oblique

22

55.0

Oblique

11

27.5

Precision

7

17.5

Total

40

100.0

Brushing method visits 1 and 2

 

Frequency

Percent

Horizontal

23

57.5

Vertical

8

20.0

Circular

9

22.5

Total

40

100.0

Table 2: Frequency distribution of subjects

Grip

 

Frequency

Percent

Distal oblique

22

55.0

Oblique

11

27.5

Precision

7

17.5

Total

40

100.0

Brushing Technique visits 3,4 and 5

 

Frequency

Percent

Modified Bass

20

50.0

Modified Stillman's

20

50.0

Total

40

100.0

Table 3:Comparison of the effects of three grips on plaque index

 

 

PRE-1

PRE-5

sig. 2 TAILED

POST-1

POST-5

sig. 2 TAILED

GRIP

DISTAL OBLIQUE

173.00 ± 52.74

159.30 ± 48.64

NS

168.50 ± 45.00

13.95 ± 10.67

S

OBLIQUE

180.00 ± 49.37

168.18 ± 19.11

NS

93.64 ± 25.30

16.45 ± 9.68

S

PRECISION

154.00 ± 33.50

124.57 ± 45.98

NS

70.71 ± 37.88

6.57 ± 3.73

S

Confidence interval was evaluated at 95%; significance p < 0.05; S=Significant; NS-not significant

Table 4: Comparison of the effects of two brushing techniques on plaque scores

 

 

PRE-3

PRE-5

sig. 2 TAILED

POST-3

POST-5

sig. 2 TAILED

BRUSHING TECHNIQUE

MBT

185.25 ± 33.83

143.25 ± 43.81

S

40.35 ± 26.41

17.05 ± 11.63

S

MST

183.80 ± 39.93

168.15 ± 41.13

S

45.85 ± 21.28

9.65 ± 6.20

S

MBT: modified Bass technique; MST: modified Stillman’s technique
Confidence interval was evaluated at 95%; significance p < 0.05; S=Significant

Table 5: Comparison of the combined effects of brushing techniques and grips on plaque removal

 

MBT

MST

PRE-3

PRE-5

sig. 2 TAILED

PRE-3

PRE-5

sig. 2 TAILED

GRIP

DISTAL OBLIQUE

183.11 ± 37.83

138.22 ± 50.87

S

185.69 ± 40.60

174.00 ± 42.98

NS

OBLIQUE

192.62 ± 23.12

165.38 ± 12.17

S

184.00 ± 37.32

175.67 ± 34.53

NS

PRECISION

172.00 ± 52.67

99.33 ± 48.95

NS

177.50 ± 50.07

143.50 ± 38.95

NS

MBT: modified Bass technique; MST: modified Stillman’s technique
Confidence interval was evaluated at 95%; significance p < 0.05; S=Significant; NS-not significant