The Benefit toothbrush completed
a 30-day evaluation for clinical safety and efficacy that was conducted
by Samuel L Yankell, Ph.D., R.D.H.. Research Professor in Periodontics
for the School of Dental Medicine at the University
of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and Robert
C. Emling, EdD. Director of Development for International Dental
Research, Ltd. in Moorestown, New Jersey.
This clinical study was designed to compare the Benefit toothbrush
with Oral B Laboratories Oral B 40 manual toothbrush and Bausch
& Lomb’s lnterplak electric-powered toothbrush in plaque
and gingivitis evaluations. Ninety-six
subjects, composed of thirty-two subjects in each of three groups,
were tested over a period of 30 days, with measurements taken at
Day 0 (“Baseline”), Day 15 and Day 30.
Plaque area was scored using the method of Turesky, et al, with
the Plak-lite disclosing system. Gingivitis was evaluated using
the method of Loe and Silness, at the buccal and lingual gingival
margins of the Ramfjord teeth. If a Ramfjord tooth was missing the
adjacent tooth with the same morphology was used for assessment.
Bleeding on probing was performed according to the Eastman Dental
Center published method on medial and distal interproximal areas
of the premolar and molar teeth contralateral to the Ramfjord teeth.
Excerpts from the final report dated April 22, 1992. from this
study are reproduced below.
Summary and Conclusions:
“This study was performed in compliance with the American
Dental Association guidelines to compare efficacy and safety of
three toothbrush products; Oral B, an ADA accepted manual toothbrush
Interplak, an ADA accepted powered toothbrush and the Benefit experimental
manual toothbrush. Safety, plaque, gingivitis and bleeding on probing
were evaluated at Baseline, Days 15 and 30.
No oral irritation was observed or reported, related to toothbrush
use, throughout the study or at any examination time.
Plaque area indices were not different among the three brush groups
when patients reported for baseline assessment the first day, day
I5 and day 30. After using their assigned product, the Benefit
brush was significantly more effective than the Oral B product on
lingual and total plaque reduction from tooth brushing from baseline
date to day 15 and day 30. The Interplak product was also superior
to the Oral B toothbrush on total plaque removal at all assessment
periods, and in removing lingual plaque at day 15 and buccal plaque
on day 30. There was no significant difference in plaque removal
between the Benefit toothbrush and the Interplak unit at anytime
during the study.
Gingivitis indices were significantly lower in the group compared
to the Interplak and Oral B group means. At day 30 the Benefit
gingivitis scores were significantly lower than Oral B mean values.
There were no significant differences in bleeding on probing among
the three groups at any time in the study.
The Benefit Toothbrush is considered significantly superior
to the Oral B 40 toothbrush in reducing plaque and gingivitis mean
values after 30 days of product use in this study.
There were no significant differences between the Benefit toothbrush
and the Interplak product on plaque removal, gingivitis or bleeding
upon probing during this thirty-day study.”
Technological University of Mexico
The toothbrush completed an additional six-week study by the Technological
University of Mexico "Pablo Funtanet" Dental Care Center
by Dr. Ana Marfa Hernandez Santamarfa, a prophylactic dentist and
periodontist with studies in Periodontology and Anatomy-Physiology
(Buccal Biology) at the Universite de Paris. The
objective of the study was to determine the efficacy of the toothbrush
for the removal of bacterial plaque and food residues, as well as
to determine whether it can provide adequate massaging of the gingiva
and stimulation of blood circulation without causing adverse conditions
to the soft oral tissues.
The conclusions reached from this study can be summarized as follows:
“even though the patients in this study normally use the "Stillman"
or "Modified Stillman” techniques when brushing their
teeth. The design of the Benefit toothbrush caused these patients
to switch to the “Bass” technique with excellent results.
The presence of dentobacterial plaque decreased substantially by
using the Benefit toothbrush. On rotated or unpositioned teeth,
a minimal but present dentobacterial plaque was observed in the
study. Periodontal irritation, which is typically present with any
new toothbrush or initially upon changing brushing techniques (from
Stillman to Bass) was present with the Benefit toothbrush at the
start of the study. However, gingival inflammation decreased considerably
from the second up to the fourth week of the study. Furthermore,
this study recommended that the bristles that contact the gums and
sulcular area be changed to a softer gauge or that different variants
of the toothbrush be developed(1).
The overall result of the study recommended the use of the Benefit toothbrush due to the product’s success in eliminating
dentobacterial plaque from the surfaces of the teeth.”
1) Subsequent to the testing of this early prototype of the Benefit
toothbrush “soft bristles” and “medium bristles”
variants that incorporate softer bristles on the gum line row of
tufts of the side brush-heads have been developed.
American Dental Association
The Benefit toothbrush has received an accepted
rating from the American Dental Association, (“ADA”).