# Efficacy of the Finger Toothbrush as an Alternative Oral Hygiene Method: A Non-randomized Controlled Study

## TL;DR

This study compared the effectiveness of a finger toothbrush, finger cleaning, and a manual toothbrush in reducing plaque, finding the finger toothbrush more effective than finger cleaning but less than a manual toothbrush.

## Contribution

The study introduces the finger toothbrush as a culturally adapted, transitional oral hygiene tool for underprivileged or rural populations.

## Key findings

- The finger toothbrush significantly reduced plaque compared to finger cleaning alone.
- Manual toothbrushes were most effective in reducing plaque over 15 days.
- All groups showed statistically significant plaque reduction within their own methods.

## Abstract

Introduction

Oral hygiene practices are essential in the prevention of periodontal diseases and caries, with mechanical plaque removal being a primary factor in reducing their incidence. Rural and underprivileged populations often rely on traditional methods, such as using a finger for teeth cleaning. In this context, the present study used a finger toothbrush as an oral hygiene tool that mimics the traditional habit of cleaning teeth using a finger. This study assessed the plaque removal efficacy of the finger toothbrush by comparing it to the teeth cleaning method using a finger and the manual toothbrush (control).

Methods

This non-randomized controlled trial included 90 participants (45 male participants and 45 female participants aged between 18 and 72 years). They were assigned to three groups: Group A (finger toothbrush), Group B (teeth cleaning using a finger), and Group C (manual toothbrush, control) based on their teeth-cleaning method. After manual scaling and polishing, plaque index scores were assessed on Day 1. Post-intervention plaque index was measured on Day 15 using the Silness and Loe plaque index. Data were analyzed using Chi-square or Fisher's exact test for categorical variables, ANOVA for normally distributed continuous variables, and the Kruskal-Wallis H test for non-normally distributed variables. Wilcoxon's signed rank test was used for intra-group comparisons. A p-value of <0.05 was considered statistically significant.

Results

All inter- and intra-group comparisons were statistically significant (p < 0.05). After 15 days, Group A (finger toothbrush) demonstrated a significant reduction in plaque (median plaque index: 0.62, interquartile range (IQR): 0.69) compared to Group B (teeth cleaning method using a finger), which showed minimal plaque reduction (median plaque index: 1.70, IQR: 0.42). Group C showed the most significant plaque reduction (median plaque index: 0.29, IQR: 0.19). The finger toothbrush was significantly more effective than the teeth cleaning method with a finger in reducing plaque accumulation, though it was not as good as a manual toothbrush.

Conclusion

This study highlighted the importance of alternative oral hygiene methods tailored to populations using the finger for teeth cleaning. The finger toothbrush effectively reduces plaque compared to teeth cleaning using fingers and serves as a valuable transitional tool, promoting better oral hygiene in populations where manual toothbrushes are inaccessible or culturally unaccepted, thereby bridging the gap between traditional and modern oral hygiene practices.