Home About us Editorial board Search Ahead of print Current issue Archives Submit article Instructions Subscribe Contacts Login 
Visit old site
Home Print this page Email this page Small font size Default font size Increase font size
Users Online: 1985


 
 Table of Contents  
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Year : 2014  |  Volume : 6  |  Issue : 7  |  Page : 333-337

Comparative effectiveness of chewing stick and toothbrush: A randomized clinical trial


1 Department of Community Dentistry (DIKIOHS), Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan
2 Department of Science of Dental Materials, Multan Medical and Dental College, Multan, Pakistan
3 Department of Research, Dow University of Health Sciences, Karachi, Pakistan

Date of Web Publication18-Jul-2014

Correspondence Address:
Aeeza S Malik
Department of Community Dentistry, DIKIOHS-Dow University of Health Sciences, A-262, Block 'C', North Nazimabad, Karachi
Pakistan
Login to access the Email id

Source of Support: None, Conflict of Interest: None


DOI: 10.4103/1947-2714.136916

Rights and Permissions
  Abstract 

Background: With the increasing rate of oral diseases, the global necessity of effective and economical products for its prevention and treatment has intensified. Aim: This study was to compare the effectiveness of two oral hygiene aids: Chewing stick and manual toothbrush, for plaque removal and gingival health after one month of a randomized clinical trial. Materials and Methods: Dental students (age 18-22 years) of a public sector dental hospital were recruited. Sample size was determined using the American Dental Association guidelines. Participants were randomized into two interventional groups and provided with either chewing sticks or toothbrushes. Pre- and post-intervention examinations were executed by two blind and calibrated examiners using plaque and gingival dental indices. Statistical analysis included descriptive statistics, paired t-test, and two sample independent t-tests. Results: Fifty subjects were recruited with mean age 20 ± 0.66 years (80% were females and 20% were males). Except for the mean plaque scores of toothbrush users (which increased at post-intervention examination), all other scores showed reduction. In contrast to the final mean gingival scores, a significant difference (P = < 0.0001) in the final mean plaque score was observed for the two respective interventional groups. Conclusion: Chewing stick has revealed parallel and at times greater mechanical and chemical cleansing of oral tissues as compared to a toothbrush.

Keywords: Dental caries, Dental plaque, Miswak, Primary prevention, Tooth brushing


How to cite this article:
Malik AS, Shaukat MS, Qureshi AA, Abdur R. Comparative effectiveness of chewing stick and toothbrush: A randomized clinical trial. North Am J Med Sci 2014;6:333-7

How to cite this URL:
Malik AS, Shaukat MS, Qureshi AA, Abdur R. Comparative effectiveness of chewing stick and toothbrush: A randomized clinical trial. North Am J Med Sci [serial online] 2014 [cited 2019 Nov 16];6:333-7. Available from: http://www.najms.org/text.asp?2014/6/7/333/136916


  Introduction Top


Oral health status has a major impact on the general feature of life and well-being. With the increasing rate of oral diseases, the global necessity of effective and economical products for prevention and treatment has intensified. [1] This calls for an understanding of traditional practices and oral health beliefs. [2] Use of modern toothbrushes and inter-dental cleaners has ignored the most effective primitive oral hygiene tool, that is, the chewing sticks also known as miswak. [3]

Chewing sticks of plants were prehistorically used by the early Arabs, Babylonian, Greek, and Roman societies for cleaning teeth. Chemical examinations have revealed a new era of chewing sticks reimbursement, which established that these sticks contain natural ingredients, which are beneficial for oral health. It has been reviewed that it contains ascorbic acid, tri-methylamine, chloride, fluoride, silica, resins, and salvadorine, which have proved potency to heal the inflamed and bleeding gums, produce stimulatory effect on gingiva, remove tartar, and other stains from the teeth, re-mineralize dental hard tissue, whitens teeth, provide enamel barrier, and increase salivary flow, respectively. In addition, chewing sticks also contains volatile oils, tannic acid, sulphur and sterols which attribute to anti-septic, astringent and bactericidal properties that help reduces plaque formation, provides anti-carious effects, eliminates bad odor, improves the sense of taste, and cure many systemic diseases. [4],[5],[6],[7],[8],[9] All these laboratory findings have discovered a new paradigm in the history of preventive dentistry and researchers aimed to bring back the focus on chewing sticks due to its diverse oral health benefits and orthodox adaptation of feasible structure.

The discovery and apprehension for the alternate oral practices, in particular reference to these chewing sticks, was recommended in 1987 by The World Health Organization and is still being endorsed in order to support these as an effective tool for oral hygiene. [10],[11] The use of chewing sticks also fulfils the fundamental requisite of primary health care and may be a proper substitute to the modern manual toothbrush to accomplish the goal of prevention of oral diseases, especially in countries with economic restraints and countries with restricted oral health care services for general population. It is affordable and easily available in majority of urban and rural areas of developing countries. In Pakistan, the main factor attributed to the selection of chewing sticks against toothbrush is its acquisition by more than 50% of its population living in rural areas. [12] It is observed that the affordability of toothbrush is low among rural (only 8%) than urban (38%) societies of Pakistan. Similarly, chewing sticks has been reported to be practiced by 90% of rural population in Nigeria and Tanzania, 50% of Saudi Arabians, and 65% rural, and 43% urban Indian population. [13],[14],[15]

In order to reestablish chewing sticks as an effective and exclusive oral hygiene tool in today's nylon toothbrush society where newer attractive products are being introduced everyday in market, clinical evidence proving not only its chemical but also its mechanical superior properties is of prime importance. Therefore, this study was conducted with a testing null hypothesis that "no difference in the mean plaque and gingival scores will be observed for different sites of the examined teeth among chewing stick and manual toothbrush users." The objective of this trial was to compare the effectiveness of two oral hygiene aids: Chewing stick and manual toothbrush, for plaque removal and gingival health after one month of a randomized clinical trial.


  Materials and Methods Top


Methodology of the present study was composed in line with Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) guidelines for reporting clinical trials [16] and pursued the ethical standards of World Medical Association for human experimentation 2008 version of Helsinki Declaration. [17] Permission to conduct the study was obtained from the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of Dow University of Health Sciences (DUHS), Karachi, Pakistan. A group of regularly attending dental students (age 18-22 years) of the same university were recruited for this trial over a span of 1 month (April 2013). The sample size was determined using the American Dental Association (ADA), Acceptance Program Guidelines for Chemotherapeutic Products for Control of Gingivitis, 2009. [18] A signed written consent informing about the aim and benefits of the study was taken from each study subject. Subjects with any systemic or oral disease, dental prosthesis, poor manual dexterity, recent or current antibiotic coverage, and non-consenting cases were excluded from the study. Selected participants were then randomized into two interventional groups (Group A and Group B) using simple random number table. Details of randomized participants were enclosed in sequentially numbered, opaque, sealed envelopes (SNOSE). The examiners and trial statistician (outcome assessor) were blind to the treatment allocation, while the participants and principal investigator (AM) were not masked to group assignment.

Group A participants were provided with the new, soft textured, nylon manual toothbrushes while members of group B were given new fresh chewing stick of Neem tree measuring 20 cm (length) × 20 mm (diameter). Before the commencement of study a pre-trial workshop was conducted in which the participants of both groups were demonstrated about the appropriate and recommended use of manual toothbrush and chewing stick respectively. The recommendations for toothbrush users (group A) included brushing teeth according to BASS method with toothpaste application of full length on toothbrush and brushing teeth twice daily (after breakfast and before going to bed) for 2 minute. [19] The demonstrations and instructions for chewing stick users (group B) included the technique of preparation of working end of chewing sticks and its appropriate brushing technique. It was advised to prepare a new working end every day and brushing twice daily (after breakfast and before going to bed) for 2-5 minutes. The sticks which are not prepared are instructed to be refrigerated. [6],[9]

Dental examination was conducted at baseline and later after 1 month, that is, pre-interventional and post-interventional phases, respectively. These examinations were executed by two blinded, trained and calibrated examiners. Training included the discussion sessions and practical exercises with the out patients from the Oral Diagnostic Department. Turesky Quigley Hein Plaque index (1962) [20] and Loe and Silness gingival index (1962) [21] were used as basic examination tools to assess dental plaque and gingival status respectively. Examination was performed on mobile dental units under day time sun light using sterilized mouth mirror and Community Periodontal Index of Treatment Need (CPITN) probe. Inter-examiner reliability for the two indices was attained between the two examiners on 10% of the total study subjects. After recording the gingival status, the participants were asked to dissolve the given plaque disclosing lozenges (with 1% fucoaslid) in the oral cavity in order to stain the overnight deposition of dental plaque which was then scored using Turesky Quigley Hein Plaque Index.

Statistical analysis

Data was entered and analyzed using Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 16. Kappa statistics was used to describe the inter-examiner reliability. Descriptive statistics were used to calculate mean (standard deviation) scores of plaque and gingival indices. Paired t-tests were applied to compare the difference in mean plaque and gingival scores at the pre-intervention and post-intervention phases of examination separately for group A and group B, whereas the significant difference for post-intervention plaque and gingival scores between both the groups was calculated by employing two sample independent t-test. The P value for statistically significant differences in mean plaque and gingival scores was considered as < 0.05 at 95% confidence level.


  Results Top


A total of 50 subjects were recruited for the trial with a mean age of 20 ± 0.66 years, out of which 80% were females and 20% were males.

Mean Kappa value calculated as inter-examiner reliability was 0.97. [Table 1] demonstrates the observed mean (standard deviation) of plaque and gingival scores for both group A and group B, which were calculated at pre-interventionand post-intervention examination phases. The same table illustrates the paired t-test values which imply comparative (pre and post intervention) differences in plaque and gingival mean scores within chewing stick users, as well as within toothbrush users. Similarly, the table also appreciates a significant difference (< 0.0001) in the final mean plaque scores (ΔP), where as a non-significant difference (0.166) in the final mean gingival scores (ΔG) of the two respective interventional groups.
Table 1: Comparison of mean plaque and mean gingival scores between the two interventional groups at pre- and post-examination phases

Click here to view



  Discussion Top


The present trial was conducted to assess the comparative effectiveness of two oral hygiene aids that is, chewing stick of Neem tree and manual toothbrush on dental plaque removal and gingival health.

Sample size and trial specifications for this research were followed using the ADA Guidelines, which recommend that "at least 25 patients for each product should be available for examination at the end of the study." These guidelines also suggests to conduct a trial for at least 30-day period with measurements to be taken at baseline (prior to the study), 15 days (optional), and at 30 days. The subjects should report having not cleaned their teeth for 12-16 hours (overnight plaque formation). [18] All these guidelines were taken into consideration while conducting this trial. Moreover, the reason for conducting trials over a span of 1 month is that, a period of 9 to 21 days is reported to be required to appreciate excessive plaque deposits and mild gingivitis in the oral cavity. [22]

Trial standardizations in this study were made by holding a pre-trial workshop. Every participant of group A (tooth brush users), was individually taught the recommended brushing method. They were advised to brush with a full length amount of recommended fluoride toothpaste. These participants were allowed to use toothpaste on toothbrush for the reason that chewing sticks also releases chemicals (fluoride) that can maintain oral hygiene. [7] However, professional oral cleaning measures such as scaling, curettage or high-fluoride applications were strictly prohibited during the study period. The proper preparation, maintenance, and technique to use the given chewing sticks were also demonstrated in detail to the members of group B (chewing stick users) in order to prevent the gingival trauma.

For centuries the roots, twigs and stems of Salvadora persica (Arak tree) sticks have been used as oral cleaning aids and have superior chemical properties. [7] Due to its rare availability in South Asian countries these were not used in this study; instead, Azadirachta indica sticks taken from flexible branches of Neem tree, were used as an alternative having closest properties to Arak plant. Also in a recent Indian study the Neem tree sticks were found to be similarly effective in removing plaque as modern toothbrushes. [23]

Negligible trials have been conducted so far those can be used to compare the results. However, a few available evidences have reported the effectiveness of chewing sticks against modern toothbrushes. [23],[24],[25],[26],[27] None of these studies have followed the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials guidelines (CONSORT), whereas the current trial was based on these international guidelines and hence maintain to prove a more reliable slant.

According to the results of this trial, it is interpreted that the testing null hypothesis has partially been accepted, as no difference in gingival scores was observed for different sites of the examined teeth among chewing stick and toothbrush users and therefore chewing stick was found to be equally effective as toothbrush in terms of gingival status. On the other hand, chewing stick had shown even better results in terms of reduction in plaque scores than in subjects using toothbrush. It may further emphasized that the results of this trial are in close proximity with the results of a previously reported literature by Bhambal et al. [23] , who also reported no significant difference in plaque and gingival scores between the miswak and toothbrush users. The increase in plaque scores of subjects using toothbrush has not been observed in any of the previous studies [23],[24],[25],[26] , only a single study has reported the superior cleaning action of chewing stick in comparison to nylon toothbrush that too only for interproximal surfaces. [25] As far as the antimicrobial actions of chewing stick is concerned, literature has shown that the risk of dental caries identified was 9.35 times more in subjects using toothbrush than those using chewing sticks. [28] Also lower occurrence of dental caries due to less plaque deposits has been observed in populations using the Neem and Arak miswak sticks. [29] The current trial did not take dental caries into consideration, therefore, cannot suggest any effective equivalency of toothbrush and the chewing stick pertinent to dental caries. However, the superior chemical and antimicrobial effect according to the previous literature and the anti-periopathic result of this trial has made chewing stick no less than today's nylon toothbrushes.


  Conclusion Top


Chewing sticks (miswak) has revealed parallel and at times greater mechanical and chemical cleansing of oral tissues as compared to a toothbrush. The anti-plaque efficacy of chewing stick was significantly demonstrated in this study. This indicates that it may effectively and exclusively replace the toothbrush. Therefore, it is suggested that advocacy may be planned to amplify the use of chewing sticks on the evidence of the current trial especially in the developing countries with financial limitations and restricted oral health care services for general population.


  Acknowledgement Top


Heartfelt thanks to all the study participants, Dr. Narender Dawani and Dr. Sohail Sadat from the Dept of Community Dentistry, DIKIOHS, and the platform of Dow University of Health Sciences. Karachi.

 
  References Top

1.Wu CD, Darout IA, Skaug N. Chewing sticks: Timeless natural tooth brushes for oral cleansing. J Periodontal Res 2001;36:275-84.  Back to cited text no. 1
    
2.Davidson N, Skull S, Calache H, Chesters D, Chalmers J. Equitable access to dental care for an at-risk group: A review of services for Australian refugees. Aust N Z J Public Health 2007;31:73-80.  Back to cited text no. 2
    
3.Hyson JM Jr. History of the toothbrush. J Hist Dent 2003;51:73-80.  Back to cited text no. 3
[PUBMED]    
4.Tubaishat RS, Darby ML, Bauman DB, Box CE. Use of miswak versus toothbrushes: Oral health beliefs and behaviors among a sample of Jordanian adults. Int J Dent Hyg 2005;3:126-36.  Back to cited text no. 4
    
5.Halawany HS. A review on miswak (SalvadoraPersica) and its effect on various aspects of oral health. Saudi Dent J 2012;24:63-9.  Back to cited text no. 5
[PUBMED]    
6.Dahiya PD, Kamal RK, Luthra RP, Mishra RM, Saini GS. Miswak: A Periodontist Perspective. J Ayurveda Integr Med 2012;3:184-7.  Back to cited text no. 6
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
7.Halawany HS. A review on miswak (Salvadora persica) and its effect on various aspects of oral health. Oral Health Prev Dent 2003;1:301.  Back to cited text no. 7
    
8.Singh A, Purohit B. Tooth brushing, oil pulling and tissue regeneration: A review of holistic approaches to oral health. J Ayurveda Integr Med 2011;2:64-8.  Back to cited text no. 8
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
9.Hooda A, Rathee M, Singh J. Chewing sticks in the era of toothbrush: A review. Internet J Fam Pract 2011;9.  Back to cited text no. 9
    
10.Ababneh H. The effect of the extract of the miswak (chewing sticks) used in Jordan and the Middle East on oral bacteria. Int Dent J 1995;45:218-22.  Back to cited text no. 10
[PUBMED]    
11.Khalessi AM, Pack AR, Thomson WM, Tompkins GR. Extracts of Salvadora persica. Int Dent J 2004;54:279-83.  Back to cited text no. 11
    
12.Asadi SG, Asadi ZG. Chewing sticks and the oral hygiene habits of the adult Pakistani population. Int Dent J 1997;47:275-8.  Back to cited text no. 12
[PUBMED]    
13.Mumghamba EG, Manji KP, Michael J. Oral hygiene practices, periodontal conditions, dentition status and self-reported bad mouth breath among young mothers, Tanzania. Int J Dent Hyg 2006;4:166-73.  Back to cited text no. 13
    
14.Guile EE, Al-Shammery AR, El-Backly MN. Oral health survey of Saudi Arabia: Oral health knowledge attitudes and practice among adults. J Dent Res 1996;75.  Back to cited text no. 14
    
15.Akhtar MS, Ajmal M. Significance of chewing sticks (Miswak) in oral hygiene from a pharmacological viewpoint. J Pak Med Assoc 2000;4:84-95.  Back to cited text no. 15
    
16.Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D. CONSORT 2010. BMC Med 2010;8:18.  Back to cited text no. 16
    
17.Ethical Principles for Medical Research Involving Human Subjects. World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki, 2008 (Assessed January 5, 2013, at http://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/b3).  Back to cited text no. 17
    
18.Acceptance Program Guidelines Toothbrushes, American dental association, council on scientific affairs, 2009; 9-10.  Back to cited text no. 18
    
19.Ganss C, Schlueter N, Preiss S, Klimek J. Tooth brushing habits in uninstructed adults-frequency, technique, duration and force. Clin Oral Investig 2009;13:203-8.  Back to cited text no. 19
    
20.Quigley GA, Hein JW. Comparative cleansing efficiency of manual and power brushing. J Am Dent Assoc 1962;65:26-9.  Back to cited text no. 20
[PUBMED]    
21.Silness J, Loe H. Periodontal disease in pregnancy II. Correlation between oral hygiene and periodontal condition. Acta Odontol Scand 1964;22:121-35.  Back to cited text no. 21
[PUBMED]    
22.Theilade E, Wright WH, Borglum JS, Harald L. Experimental gingivitis in man. A Longitudinal Clinical and Bacteriological Investigation. J Periodontal Res 2006;1:1-13.  Back to cited text no. 22
    
23.Bhambal AB, Kothari SK, Saxena SS, Jain MJ. Comparative effect of neem stick and toothbrush on plaque removal and gingival health - A clinical trial. J Adv Oral 2011;2:51-6.  Back to cited text no. 23
    
24.Ezoddini-Ardakani M, Nouri Shadkam M, Fotouhi H, Bolouri FS. Study of the effects of natural toothbrush (Salvadora persica) in prevention of dental caries and plaque index. Health 2012;4:612-8.  Back to cited text no. 24
    
25.Patel PV, Shruthi S, Kumar SK. Clinical effect of Miswak as an adjunct to tooth brushing on gingivitis. J Indian Soc Periodontol 2012;16:84-8.  Back to cited text no. 25
[PUBMED]  Medknow Journal  
26.Al-Otaibi M, Al-Harthy M, Söder B, Gustafsson A, Angmar-Månsson B. Comparative effect of chewing sticks and tooth brushing on plaque removal and gingival health. Oral Health Prev Dent 2003;1:301-7.  Back to cited text no. 26
    
27.Batwa M. The effectiveness of chewing stick miswakon plaque removal. Saudi Dent J 2006;3:125-33.  Back to cited text no. 27
    
28.Ezoddini-Ardakani F. Efficacy of Miswak (Salvadora persica) in preventing dental caries. Health 2010;2:499-503.  Back to cited text no. 28
    
29.Islam B, Khan SN, Khan AU. Dental caries: From infection to prevention. Med Sci Monit 2007;13.  Back to cited text no. 29
    



 
 
    Tables

  [Table 1]


This article has been cited by
1 Comparing caries experience between Azadirachta indica chewing stick users and toothbrush users among the 35-44-year-old rural population of Southern India
Srinivas Pachava,ViswaC Chandu,SureshC Yaddanapalli,AnkineeduB Dasari,HusseinM Assaf
Journal of International Society of Preventive and Community Dentistry. 2019; 9(4): 417
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
2 Investigations of a Possible Chemical Effect of Salvadora persica Chewing Sticks
Reham Albabtain,Muhammad Azeem,Zenebech Wondimu,Tulay Lindberg,Anna Karin Borg-Karlson,Anders Gustafsson
Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine. 2017; 2017: 1
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
3 Experience of dental care, knowledge and attitudes of older immigrants in Sweden-A qualitative study
E Olerud,M-L Hagman-Gustavsson,P Gabre
International Journal of Dental Hygiene. 2017;
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
4 Next generation sequencing of oral microbiota in Type 2 diabetes mellitus prior to and after neem stick usage and correlation with serum monocyte chemoattractant-1
Rubini Anbalagan,Padma Srikanth,Monika Mani,Ramya Barani,Krishna G. Seshadri,R. Janarthanan
Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice. 2017; 130: 204
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
5 Chitosan Biomaterials for Current and Potential Dental Applications
Shehriar Husain,Khalid H. Al-Samadani,Shariq Najeeb,Muhammad S. Zafar,Zohaib Khurshid,Sana Zohaib,Saad B. Qasim
Materials. 2017; 10(6): 602
[Pubmed] | [DOI]
6 Miswak/Derum Manipulation, a Common Habit in Baluchestan, Iran
Masoomeh Shirzaiy,Zahra Sarani,Sudabeh Bagheri
International Journal of High Risk Behaviors and Addiction. 2016; In Press(In Press)
[Pubmed] | [DOI]



 

Top
 
 
  Search
 
Similar in PUBMED
   Search Pubmed for
   Search in Google Scholar for
 Related articles
Access Statistics
Email Alert *
Add to My List *
* Registration required (free)

 
  In this article
Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Me...
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Acknowledgement
References
Article Tables

 Article Access Statistics
    Viewed2933    
    Printed52    
    Emailed0    
    PDF Downloaded595    
    Comments [Add]    
    Cited by others 6    

Recommend this journal