---

When we are practicing dentistry, many times, we are used to hearing our colleagues say: ‘it works in my hands’ or, ‘I believe in this material’ or, ‘this is how I have been doing it for years’. And usually we feel that it really does work in our hands. However, we need to remember, that even when we feel ‘it works in our hands’ or even when we truly believe in a specific product or treatment modality, it is not always necessarily the case. We actually need to collect data properly and to analyze it in a way that will be comprehensive and unbiased.

When we are talking about evidence-based practice, there is a pyramid reflecting levels of evidence that we are referring to (Figure 1). This pyramid starts with in vitro lab research and goes through increasing levels of evidence until it reaches the top of the pyramid where systematic reviews and meta-analysis are. In systematic reviews and meta-analysis, we are evaluating or analyzing data from a variety of randomized controlled trials or a variety of studies that were done on a specific topic.

A recent example is a systematic review that we have published in the April edition of the Journal of the American Dental Association.¹ In this study we have evaluated and analyzed randomized controlled trials comparing oscillating rotating versus other powered toothbrushes. Our findings showed that there is some evidence to suggest that oscillating rotating toothbrushes might remove more plaque and reduce the number of bleeding sites better than other powered toothbrushes.

Recently, Oral-B has introduced a new oscillating rotating electric toothbrush, the Oral-B iO (Figure 2), that combines Oral-B’s round brush head with oscillation rotations and micro-vibrations. Oral-B iO captures new design features that are aimed to improve the patient’s experience of the brush and encourage patient compliance.