## 3 Results  
Fifty-seven subjects (44 females and 13 males) were included and allocated to Group 1 (MTB + OR PTB) (n = 30, 22 females and 8 males) and Group 2 (HFS PTB) (n = 27, 22 females and 5 males). At T0, there were no between-group differences in socio-demographic and clinical characteristics, except for statistically significant higher values in Group 1 (MTB + OR PTB) in terms of number of smokers (\(p\) = 0.043) and in Group 2 (HFS PTB) in terms of tooth brushing timing (\(p\) = 0.006). Moreover, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups according to the data on dental formula (see Table 1 for further details). At the baseline, the indexes of oral hygiene, gingival inflammation, and lingual patina were significantly higher in Group 1 (MTB + OR PTB) than in Group 2 (HFS PTB) (\(p\) < 0.0001), as depicted by Table 2. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline  & **Group 1 (MTB + OR PTB)** & **Group 2 (HFS PTB) (n = 27)** \\  & **(n = 30)** & **Group 2 (HFS PTB) (n = 27)** \\ \hline Sex (male/female) & 8/22 & 5/22 \\ Mean age (years) & 23.17 \(\pm\) 1.91 & 23.27 \(\pm\) 2.07 \\ Right-handed/left-handed & 29/1 & 26/1 \\ Smokers (n. \%) & 12 (40.00\%) * & 4 (14.80\%) \\ Tooth brushing frequency & & \\
2/die & 10 (33.33\%) & 15 (55.56\%) \\
3/die & 19 (63.33\%) & 11 (40.74\%) \\
3/die & 1 (3.33\%) & 1 (3.70\%) \\ Tooth brushing timing & & \\ \(<\)60 sec & 10 (33.33\%) & 1 (3.70\%) \\ \(>\)60 sec & 20 (66.67\%) & 26 (96.30\%) * \\ Pipe cleaners & 17 (56.61\%) & 20 (74.6\%) \\ Dental floss & 10 (33.33\%) & 6 (22.38\%) \\ Mouthwash & 14 (46.67\%) & 8 (29.63\%) \\ Tongue cleaning & & \\ Toothbrush & 30 (90\%) & 26 (96.30\%) \\ Tongue cleaner & 1(3.33\%) & 1 (3.70\%) \\ Number of teeth & 28.73 \(\pm\) 1.31 & 28.46 \(\pm\) 1.10 \\ Subjects with decayed teeth & 2 (6.67\%) & 1 (3.70\%) \\ Subjects with filled teeth & 15 (50\%) & 22 (81.48\%) \\ Subjects with sealed teeth & 10 (33.33\%) & 9 (33.33\%) \\ Subjects with cervical wear & 2 (6.67\%) & 2 (7.40\%) \\ Subjects with vestibular recession & 7 (23.30\%) & 4 (14.81\%) \\ Subjects with demineralization & 8 (26.67\%) & 7 (25.93\%) \\ Subjects with fixed prosthesis & 6 (20\%) & 2 (7.40\%) \\ Subjects with orthodontic fixed & 2 (6.67\%) & 2 (7.40\%) \\ appliance & & 4 (14.81\%) \\ Subjects with orthodontic split & & \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Continuous variables are expressed as means \(\pm\) standard deviations or median and IQR; categorical variables are expressed as counts/percentages; ratios are expressed as x/y. Abbreviations: HFS = high-frequency sonic; MTB = manual toothbrush; OR = oscillating-rotating; PTB = powered toothbrush. * = proved toothbrush. * = \(p\) < 0.05.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Study population baseline characteristics (n = 57). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & **Group 1 (MTB + OR PTB)** & **Group 2 (HFS PTB)** & **\(p\) Value** \\ \hline NMPS & 2.17 \(\pm\) 0.85 & 0.27 \(\pm\) 0.37 & \textless{}0.0001 \\ OHI-S & 1.07 \(\pm\) 0.65 & 0.25 \(\pm\) 0.28 & \textless{}0.0001 \\ PCR & 53.84 \(\pm\) 16.47 & 7.87 \(\pm\) 9.76 & \textless{}0.0001 \\ GBI & 3.04 \(\pm\) 3.17 & 0.72 \(\pm\) 0.74 & \textless{}0.0001 \\ WTCI & 0.46 \(\pm\) 0.20 & 0.20 \(\pm\) 0.23 & \textless{}0.0001 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Continuous variables are expressed as means \(\pm\) standard deviations. Wilcoxon rank sum test was performed as statistical analysis. Abbreviations: HFS = high-frequency sonic; MTB = manual toothbrush; OR= oscillating-rotating; PTB = powered toothbrush; NMPS = New Method of Plaque Scoring; OHI-S = Oral Hygiene Index; Simplified; PCR = Plaque Control Record; GBI = Gingival Breeding Index; WTCI = Winkel Tongue Coating Index.  
\end{table} 
Table 2: Differences between the two groups in terms of oral hygiene indexes at the baseline (T0). NMPS, OHI-S, PCR, GBI, and WTCI revealed a high statistically significant improvement in Group 1, after using the OR PTB for 3 months (T1), (\(p\) < 0.0001) (as depicted in Table 3).