Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Introduction: Maintaining proper oral health becomes challenging among visually impaired individuals due to the difficulty in accurately dispensing and applying toothpaste without visual feedback. Moreover, the toothbrushes can be contaminated with pathogens from dental plaque, facilitating the potential transmission of these organisms back to the oral cavity. Materials and methods: Thirty-six visually impaired participants were randomized into two groups. Both groups used regular toothbrushes for 4 weeks. Then, Group I continued with regular toothbrushes and Group II were intervened with Solar toothbrushes for 8 weeks. The O’Leary Plaque Index (PI) and the Ainamo and Bay Gingival Bleeding Index (GBI) were assessed at the initial visit (T0), week 4 (T1), and week 12 (T2). The used brushes were collected from all participants at T2, corresponding to eight weeks after the allocated toothbrush intervention. Microbial contamination was assessed using culture-based colony-forming units (CFUs) to determine the total recoverable microbial load on toothbrush bristles. Results: After the 8 weeks of intervention, the mean reductions in PI and GBI were 10.87 ± 7.517 and 10.75 ± 5.385 percentage points for Group I, and 11.68 ± 8.097 and 13.00 ± 8.710 percentage points for Group II, respectively. The solar toothbrushes showed a significant reduction in total cultivable microbial load count (429.67 ± 131.47; p < 0.001) as compared to conventional toothbrushes (973.67 ± 74.86). Conclusions: The solar toothbrushes showed improvements in plaque and gingival indices compared to conventional regular toothbrushes and had significantly lower microbial contamination. The solar toothbrushes may serve as an easy and convenient alternative to conventional toothbrushes among visually impaired patients.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ahmad et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: