Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research, ISSN - 0973 - 709X

Users Online : 113115

AbstractMaterial and MethodsResultsDiscussionConclusionReferencesDOI and Others
Article in PDF How to Cite Citation Manager Readers' Comments (0) Audio Visual Article Statistics Link to PUBMED Print this Article Send to a Friend
Advertisers Access Statistics Resources

Dr Mohan Z Mani

"Thank you very much for having published my article in record time.I would like to compliment you and your entire staff for your promptness, courtesy, and willingness to be customer friendly, which is quite unusual.I was given your reference by a colleague in pathology,and was able to directly phone your editorial office for clarifications.I would particularly like to thank the publication managers and the Assistant Editor who were following up my article. I would also like to thank you for adjusting the money I paid initially into payment for my modified article,and refunding the balance.
I wish all success to your journal and look forward to sending you any suitable similar article in future"

Dr Mohan Z Mani,
Professor & Head,
Department of Dermatolgy,
Believers Church Medical College,
Thiruvalla, Kerala
On Sep 2018

Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar

"Over the last few years, we have published our research regularly in Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research. Having published in more than 20 high impact journals over the last five years including several high impact ones and reviewing articles for even more journals across my fields of interest, we value our published work in JCDR for their high standards in publishing scientific articles. The ease of submission, the rapid reviews in under a month, the high quality of their reviewers and keen attention to the final process of proofs and publication, ensure that there are no mistakes in the final article. We have been asked clarifications on several occasions and have been happy to provide them and it exemplifies the commitment to quality of the team at JCDR."

Prof. Somashekhar Nimbalkar
Head, Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad
Chairman, Research Group, Charutar Arogya Mandal, Karamsad
National Joint Coordinator - Advanced IAP NNF NRP Program
Ex-Member, Governing Body, National Neonatology Forum, New Delhi
Ex-President - National Neonatology Forum Gujarat State Chapter
Department of Pediatrics, Pramukhswami Medical College, Karamsad, Anand, Gujarat.
On Sep 2018

Dr. Kalyani R

"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research is at present a well-known Indian originated scientific journal which started with a humble beginning. I have been associated with this journal since many years. I appreciate the Editor, Dr. Hemant Jain, for his constant effort in bringing up this journal to the present status right from the scratch. The journal is multidisciplinary. It encourages in publishing the scientific articles from postgraduates and also the beginners who start their career. At the same time the journal also caters for the high quality articles from specialty and super-specialty researchers. Hence it provides a platform for the scientist and researchers to publish. The other aspect of it is, the readers get the information regarding the most recent developments in science which can be used for teaching, research, treating patients and to some extent take preventive measures against certain diseases. The journal is contributing immensely to the society at national and international level."

Dr Kalyani R
Professor and Head
Department of Pathology
Sri Devaraj Urs Medical College
Sri Devaraj Urs Academy of Higher Education and Research , Kolar, Karnataka
On Sep 2018

Dr. Saumya Navit

"As a peer-reviewed journal, the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research provides an opportunity to researchers, scientists and budding professionals to explore the developments in the field of medicine and dentistry and their varied specialities, thus extending our view on biological diversities of living species in relation to medicine.
‘Knowledge is treasure of a wise man.’ The free access of this journal provides an immense scope of learning for the both the old and the young in field of medicine and dentistry as well. The multidisciplinary nature of the journal makes it a better platform to absorb all that is being researched and developed. The publication process is systematic and professional. Online submission, publication and peer reviewing makes it a user-friendly journal.
As an experienced dentist and an academician, I proudly recommend this journal to the dental fraternity as a good quality open access platform for rapid communication of their cutting-edge research progress and discovery.
I wish JCDR a great success and I hope that journal will soar higher with the passing time."

Dr Saumya Navit
Professor and Head
Department of Pediatric Dentistry
Saraswati Dental College
On Sep 2018

Dr. Arunava Biswas

"My sincere attachment with JCDR as an author as well as reviewer is a learning experience . Their systematic approach in publication of article in various categories is really praiseworthy.
Their prompt and timely response to review's query and the manner in which they have set the reviewing process helps in extracting the best possible scientific writings for publication.
It's a honour and pride to be a part of the JCDR team. My very best wishes to JCDR and hope it will sparkle up above the sky as a high indexed journal in near future."

Dr. Arunava Biswas
MD, DM (Clinical Pharmacology)
Assistant Professor
Department of Pharmacology
Calcutta National Medical College & Hospital , Kolkata

Dr. C.S. Ramesh Babu
" Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a multi-specialty medical and dental journal publishing high quality research articles in almost all branches of medicine. The quality of printing of figures and tables is excellent and comparable to any International journal. An added advantage is nominal publication charges and monthly issue of the journal and more chances of an article being accepted for publication. Moreover being a multi-specialty journal an article concerning a particular specialty has a wider reach of readers of other related specialties also. As an author and reviewer for several years I find this Journal most suitable and highly recommend this Journal."
Best regards,
C.S. Ramesh Babu,
Associate Professor of Anatomy,
Muzaffarnagar Medical College,
On Aug 2018

Dr. Arundhathi. S
"Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR) is a reputed peer reviewed journal and is constantly involved in publishing high quality research articles related to medicine. Its been a great pleasure to be associated with this esteemed journal as a reviewer and as an author for a couple of years. The editorial board consists of many dedicated and reputed experts as its members and they are doing an appreciable work in guiding budding researchers. JCDR is doing a commendable job in scientific research by promoting excellent quality research & review articles and case reports & series. The reviewers provide appropriate suggestions that improve the quality of articles. I strongly recommend my fraternity to encourage JCDR by contributing their valuable research work in this widely accepted, user friendly journal. I hope my collaboration with JCDR will continue for a long time".

Dr. Arundhathi. S
MBBS, MD (Pathology),
Sanjay Gandhi institute of trauma and orthopedics,
On Aug 2018

Dr. Mamta Gupta,
"It gives me great pleasure to be associated with JCDR, since last 2-3 years. Since then I have authored, co-authored and reviewed about 25 articles in JCDR. I thank JCDR for giving me an opportunity to improve my own skills as an author and a reviewer.
It 's a multispecialty journal, publishing high quality articles. It gives a platform to the authors to publish their research work which can be available for everyone across the globe to read. The best thing about JCDR is that the full articles of all medical specialties are available as pdf/html for reading free of cost or without institutional subscription, which is not there for other journals. For those who have problem in writing manuscript or do statistical work, JCDR comes for their rescue.
The journal has a monthly publication and the articles are published quite fast. In time compared to other journals. The on-line first publication is also a great advantage and facility to review one's own articles before going to print. The response to any query and permission if required, is quite fast; this is quite commendable. I have a very good experience about seeking quick permission for quoting a photograph (Fig.) from a JCDR article for my chapter authored in an E book. I never thought it would be so easy. No hassles.
Reviewing articles is no less a pain staking process and requires in depth perception, knowledge about the topic for review. It requires time and concentration, yet I enjoy doing it. The JCDR website especially for the reviewers is quite user friendly. My suggestions for improving the journal is, more strict review process, so that only high quality articles are published. I find a a good number of articles in Obst. Gynae, hence, a new journal for this specialty titled JCDR-OG can be started. May be a bimonthly or quarterly publication to begin with. Only selected articles should find a place in it.
An yearly reward for the best article authored can also incentivize the authors. Though the process of finding the best article will be not be very easy. I do not know how reviewing process can be improved. If an article is being reviewed by two reviewers, then opinion of one can be communicated to the other or the final opinion of the editor can be communicated to the reviewer if requested for. This will help one’s reviewing skills.
My best wishes to Dr. Hemant Jain and all the editorial staff of JCDR for their untiring efforts to bring out this journal. I strongly recommend medical fraternity to publish their valuable research work in this esteemed journal, JCDR".

Dr. Mamta Gupta
(Ex HOD Obs &Gynae, Hindu Rao Hospital and associated NDMC Medical College, Delhi)
Aug 2018

Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey

"I wish to thank Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), for asking me to write up few words.
Writing is the representation of language in a textual medium i e; into the words and sentences on paper. Quality medical manuscript writing in particular, demands not only a high-quality research, but also requires accurate and concise communication of findings and conclusions, with adherence to particular journal guidelines. In medical field whether working in teaching, private, or in corporate institution, everyone wants to excel in his / her own field and get recognised by making manuscripts publication.

Authors are the souls of any journal, and deserve much respect. To publish a journal manuscripts are needed from authors. Authors have a great responsibility for producing facts of their work in terms of number and results truthfully and an individual honesty is expected from authors in this regards. Both ways its true "No authors-No manuscripts-No journals" and "No journals–No manuscripts–No authors". Reviewing a manuscript is also a very responsible and important task of any peer-reviewed journal and to be taken seriously. It needs knowledge on the subject, sincerity, honesty and determination. Although the process of reviewing a manuscript is a time consuming task butit is expected to give one's best remarks within the time frame of the journal.
Salient features of the JCDR: It is a biomedical, multidisciplinary (including all medical and dental specialities), e-journal, with wide scope and extensive author support. At the same time, a free text of manuscript is available in HTML and PDF format. There is fast growing authorship and readership with JCDR as this can be judged by the number of articles published in it i e; in Feb 2007 of its first issue, it contained 5 articles only, and now in its recent volume published in April 2011, it contained 67 manuscripts. This e-journal is fulfilling the commitments and objectives sincerely, (as stated by Editor-in-chief in his preface to first edition) i e; to encourage physicians through the internet, especially from the developing countries who witness a spectrum of disease and acquire a wealth of knowledge to publish their experiences to benefit the medical community in patients care. I also feel that many of us have work of substance, newer ideas, adequate clinical materials but poor in medical writing and hesitation to submit the work and need help. JCDR provides authors help in this regards.
Timely publication of journal: Publication of manuscripts and bringing out the issue in time is one of the positive aspects of JCDR and is possible with strong support team in terms of peer reviewers, proof reading, language check, computer operators, etc. This is one of the great reasons for authors to submit their work with JCDR. Another best part of JCDR is "Online first Publications" facilities available for the authors. This facility not only provides the prompt publications of the manuscripts but at the same time also early availability of the manuscripts for the readers.
Indexation and online availability: Indexation transforms the journal in some sense from its local ownership to the worldwide professional community and to the public.JCDR is indexed with Embase & EMbiology, Google Scholar, Index Copernicus, Chemical Abstracts Service, Journal seek Database, Indian Science Abstracts, to name few of them. Manuscriptspublished in JCDR are available on major search engines ie; google, yahoo, msn.
In the era of fast growing newer technologies, and in computer and internet friendly environment the manuscripts preparation, submission, review, revision, etc and all can be done and checked with a click from all corer of the world, at any time. Of course there is always a scope for improvement in every field and none is perfect. To progress, one needs to identify the areas of one's weakness and to strengthen them.
It is well said that "happy beginning is half done" and it fits perfectly with JCDR. It has grown considerably and I feel it has already grown up from its infancy to adolescence, achieving the status of standard online e-journal form Indian continent since its inception in Feb 2007. This had been made possible due to the efforts and the hard work put in it. The way the JCDR is improving with every new volume, with good quality original manuscripts, makes it a quality journal for readers. I must thank and congratulate Dr Hemant Jain, Editor-in-Chief JCDR and his team for their sincere efforts, dedication, and determination for making JCDR a fast growing journal.
Every one of us: authors, reviewers, editors, and publisher are responsible for enhancing the stature of the journal. I wish for a great success for JCDR."

Thanking you
With sincere regards
Dr. Rajendra Kumar Ghritlaharey, M.S., M. Ch., FAIS
Associate Professor,
Department of Paediatric Surgery, Gandhi Medical College & Associated
Kamla Nehru & Hamidia Hospitals Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462 001 (India)
On May 11,2011

Dr. Shankar P.R.

"On looking back through my Gmail archives after being requested by the journal to write a short editorial about my experiences of publishing with the Journal of Clinical and Diagnostic Research (JCDR), I came across an e-mail from Dr. Hemant Jain, Editor, in March 2007, which introduced the new electronic journal. The main features of the journal which were outlined in the e-mail were extensive author support, cash rewards, the peer review process, and other salient features of the journal.
Over a span of over four years, we (I and my colleagues) have published around 25 articles in the journal. In this editorial, I plan to briefly discuss my experiences of publishing with JCDR and the strengths of the journal and to finally address the areas for improvement.
My experiences of publishing with JCDR: Overall, my experiences of publishing withJCDR have been positive. The best point about the journal is that it responds to queries from the author. This may seem to be simple and not too much to ask for, but unfortunately, many journals in the subcontinent and from many developing countries do not respond or they respond with a long delay to the queries from the authors 1. The reasons could be many, including lack of optimal secretarial and other support. Another problem with many journals is the slowness of the review process. Editorial processing and peer review can take anywhere between a year to two years with some journals. Also, some journals do not keep the contributors informed about the progress of the review process. Due to the long review process, the articles can lose their relevance and topicality. A major benefit with JCDR is the timeliness and promptness of its response. In Dr Jain's e-mail which was sent to me in 2007, before the introduction of the Pre-publishing system, he had stated that he had received my submission and that he would get back to me within seven days and he did!
Most of the manuscripts are published within 3 to 4 months of their submission if they are found to be suitable after the review process. JCDR is published bimonthly and the accepted articles were usually published in the next issue. Recently, due to the increased volume of the submissions, the review process has become slower and it ?? Section can take from 4 to 6 months for the articles to be reviewed. The journal has an extensive author support system and it has recently introduced a paid expedited review process. The journal also mentions the average time for processing the manuscript under different submission systems - regular submission and expedited review.
Strengths of the journal: The journal has an online first facility in which the accepted manuscripts may be published on the website before being included in a regular issue of the journal. This cuts down the time between their acceptance and the publication. The journal is indexed in many databases, though not in PubMed. The editorial board should now take steps to index the journal in PubMed. The journal has a system of notifying readers through e-mail when a new issue is released. Also, the articles are available in both the HTML and the PDF formats. I especially like the new and colorful page format of the journal. Also, the access statistics of the articles are available. The prepublication and the manuscript tracking system are also helpful for the authors.
Areas for improvement: In certain cases, I felt that the peer review process of the manuscripts was not up to international standards and that it should be strengthened. Also, the number of manuscripts in an issue is high and it may be difficult for readers to go through all of them. The journal can consider tightening of the peer review process and increasing the quality standards for the acceptance of the manuscripts. I faced occasional problems with the online manuscript submission (Pre-publishing) system, which have to be addressed.
Overall, the publishing process with JCDR has been smooth, quick and relatively hassle free and I can recommend other authors to consider the journal as an outlet for their work."

Dr. P. Ravi Shankar
KIST Medical College, P.O. Box 14142, Kathmandu, Nepal.
On April 2011

Dear team JCDR, I would like to thank you for the very professional and polite service provided by everyone at JCDR. While i have been in the field of writing and editing for sometime, this has been my first attempt in publishing a scientific paper.Thank you for hand-holding me through the process.

Dr. Anuradha
On Jan 2020

Important Notice

Original article / research
Year : 2022 | Month : October | Volume : 16 | Issue : 10 | Page : ZC31 - ZC34 Full Version

Comparison of Plaque Removal Efficacy of Toothbrush with Bristle Containing Neem and Charcoal for Maintaining Oral Hygiene: A Randomised Clinical Trial

Published: October 1, 2022 | DOI:
Shwetal Somnathe, Priyanka Paul Madhu, Kumar Gaurav Chhabra, Abhilasha Chapade, Darshana Gothane

1. Intern, Department of Public Health Dentistry, Sharad Pawar Dental College and Hospital, Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences (Deemed to be University), Sawangi (Meghe) Wardha, Maharashtra, India. 2. Assistant Professor, Department of Public Health Dentistry, Sharad Pawar Dental College and Hospital, Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences (Deemed to be University), Sawangi (Meghe) Wardha, Maharashtra, India. 3. Professor, Department of Public Health Dentistry, NIMS Dental College, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India. 4. Intern, Department of Public Health Dentistry, Sharad Pawar Dental College and Hospital, Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences (Deemed to be University), Sawangi (Meghe) Wardha, Maharashtra, India. 5. Intern, Department of Public Health Dentistry, Sharad Pawar Dental College and Hospital, Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences (Deemed to be University), Sawangi (Meghe) Wardha, Maharashtra, India.

Correspondence Address :
Priyanka Paul Madhu,
Assistant Professor, Department of Public Health Dentistry, Sharad Pawar Dental College and Hospital, Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences (Deemed to be University), Sawangi (Meghe) Wardha, Maharashtra, India.


Introduction: To facilitate good oral health, plaque control by toothbrushing is of utmost importance. The poor oral hygiene leads to accumulation of plaque and calculus. It is the primary aetiological factor for gingival diseases.

Aim: To compare the plaque removal efficacy of toothbrush bristles containing neem and charcoal to assess the effect on oral hygiene.

Materials And Methods: This was a double-blind, randomised clinical trial conducted among 30 participants of age group between 33 to 44 years, who reported to the Outpatient Department of Sharad Pawar Dental College and Hospital, Maharashtra, India, for 21 days, in June 2021. Neem and charcoal toothbrushes were given to allotted participants and plaque index was measured at baseline, 7th day, and 15th day. For intergroup and intragroup comparison Independent t-test and repeated measures Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) tests were used.

Results: The mean plaque index score of neem toothbrush and charcoal toothbrush at baseline was 2.13 and 2.18 and, on day 7th was 1.79 and 1.48, respectively. No significant difference was found between the plaque scores of both the groups at baseline and seven days. However, a statistically significant difference was observed in the plaque index at 15th day between neem (1.21) and charcoal (0.61) groups with p-value=0.004.

Conclusion: It is concluded that when compared to neem toothbrushes, charcoal toothbrushes had greater plaque control efficacy for maintaining good oral hygiene.


Charcoal toothbrush, Neem toothbrush, Oral Health, toothpaste

Dental plaque is the origin of gingival and periodontal illness, which hampers oral status. It is also capable of reducing the pH at the enamel surface to the extent that causes dissolution of the hydroxyapatite crystals and initiates caries. Since the dawn of time, a variety of oral hygiene measures have been employed in which toothbrushes and dentifrices were frequently used to clean the teeth (1). The use of a toothbrush and toothpaste is the most common among all available oral hygiene approaches and was regarded to be a significant aspect in maintaining oral health in the long-term. The prevention and treatment of oral diseases and maintaining oral hygiene certainly needed for the elimination of plaque (2). In 1981, Löe demonstrated good oral hygiene at home; as a result, he concluded that optimal dental health requires strict and consistent oral hygiene (3).

All populations and almost every culture in the world have adopted oral hygiene measures since ancient times till the 21st century and it has become an integral part of a daily routine (4). The toothbrushes were invented in China around 1000 AD and it was introduced in Europe in the 17th century. It was the latter part of that century before American dentists spoke highly of its use. It is interesting to learn that it was the outcome of a compulsory toothbrushing regimen for American warriors during World War II that they brought the habit back home. They have sparked the universal use of toothbrushing and it has become a ritual for more than half of the American population (5),(6),(7). In the early 19th century, the toothbrush was reinvented for the first time, in which nylon bristles were introduced by Dupont de Nemours (8). Toothbrushes are evolving day after day to conserve oral hygiene by removing debris and plaque that benefits us all (7).

The most common way for managing dental health is personal oral hygiene maintenance with a manual toothbrush. Dr. Robert Hutson invented the multitufted, flat-trimmed, end-rounded nylon filament brush in the early 1950s, which became the basis for the current conventional manual toothbrush (9). Toothbrushing, when done correctly, has been a highly effective metric of biofilm control. A toothbrush’s design, particularly in terms of size and contour should aid in the mechanical removal of plaque and debris. The effectiveness is determined by the type of brush, its design, method of brushing, and the amount of time taken for it (7),(10).

Charcoal toothbrushes, a new type of toothbrush, have recently been introduced to the market. These are popular in Southeast Asian nations including, Malaysia, Singapore, and Indonesia (11) which have black colour bristles with binchotan charcoal being blended into the nylon fibres, thus, possessing antimicrobial qualities and resulting in lessen the amount of bacterial contamination by killing the bacteria and reduces halitosis (12),(13). Charcoal’s deodorising characteristics help to naturally clean the oral cavity and eliminate plaque debris. The toothbrushes are intended to whiten teeth, freshen breath, reduce the growth of bacteria, and detoxify the body, remove bacteria by increasing the mouth pH level, and effectively clean the oral cavity (14).

Various parts of the neem plant have shown medicinal properties such as anti-inflammatory, antipyretic, analgesic, antimicrobial, antitumorigenic, antioxidant, antiulcer, and immunostimulant activity (15). Neem is an omnipotent tree and nature’s gift to mankind for the prevention and treatment of various health ailments. In past years extensive research on therapeutic benefits of neem in oral and dental problems had proved its efficacy as an excellent agent. Neem extracts are being incorporated in dental care products for maintaining oral hygiene (16). Neem toothbrushes, a new type of toothbrush, have also been introduced into the market. No study evaluating the effect of a toothbrush with neem and charcoal-infused bristles has been published in the literature. Thus, this study aimed to determine if neem extract containing bristles showed any difference in plaque removal efficacy for maintaining oral hygiene compared to charcoal-infused nylon bristles by keeping other parameters that influence oral hygiene constant following use over time.

Material and Methods

A randomised, double-blind, clinical trial was conducted for 21 days, in June 2021 at Sharad Pawar Dental College and Hospital, Maharashtra, India. The study protocol was reviewed and ethical clearance was provided by the Institutional Ethical Committee of Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences, Sawangi (Meghe) Wardha, Maharashtra, India. The study population consisted of 30 participants (male and female) and they were divided in two groups, each group had 15 participants.

Inclusion criteria: Subjects who gave consent to participate in the study, between 33 to 44 years of age, with an original plaque score recorded above 2, (by plaque index given by Silness P and Loe H, in 1964) (17) and presence of atleast twenty long-lasting natural teeth (excluding wisdom tooth, teeth with orthodontic appliances) were included in the study.

Exclusion criteria: Subjects with any physical constraints that might prevent normal oral hygiene procedures, history of sensitivity to toothpaste, use of interdental aids (interdental floss, mouth rinses, etc), pregnant or breastfeeding females, subjects under medication such as anti-inflammatory, antiepileptic and antihypertensive, medically compromised patients (systemic diseases such as cardiovascular disease, diabetes, etc), evidences of gingival or periodontal diseases or trauma at baseline, any lesion of hard and soft tissue, were excluded from the study.

Before the commencement of the trial, the investigator examined all participants and examination was done under the guidance of guide and Professor for calibration and to intraexaminer variability. The selected 30 participants were randomised into two interventional groups (Group I and II) by lottery method (Table/Fig 1).

• Groups I-15 participants were instructed to use a toothbrush with bristles containing neem.
• Group II-Other 15 participants were instructed to use a toothbrush with bristles containing Charcoal.

Study Procedure

The clinical examination of all the subjects were done by a single investigator. All the selected participants were trained with modified Bass technique (18) on tooth models for the use of neem and charcoal toothbrushes. They were advised to brush twice a day in the morning and the evening for two minutes with specific toothbrush and Colgate toothpaste, provided by the investigator. They were also instructed to avoid other oral hygiene aids during the period of study (i.e., no irrigation devices, dental floss, mouth rinses, etc). In this study the Plaque Index was measured at baseline, 7th day, and 15th day. The scores were collected before and after brushing then data was recorded and statistically analysed.

The demographic information of the patients were collected on the first visit. Participants received an intraoral examination and the plaque index score was measured. They were also instructed to follow the same brushing pattern for the next seven days. After seven days, patients were called again, and their plaque index score was recalculated. The current plaque score was compared with the prior score. The patients were checked after 15 days, and the plaque index score was remeasured. This was done to observe how effective a toothbrush was at removing plaque thus maintaining oral hygiene.

Double-blinded study was carried out, as the principal investigator and patient was not aware regarding the groups. The examiners were trained and calibrated. The teeth used for index were dried and examined visually. A sterilised explorer and a mouth mirror was used to test the tooth surface on dental units in the daytime.

Statistical Analysis

The authors performed power analysis with a confidence interval at 80% and the data was collected by the assistant and performed randomisation. Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 22.0 was used to analyse the data. Plaque index scores were averaged, and standard deviations were calculated. Independent t-test for intergroup and repeated measures ANOVA for intragroup comparison had been done. A p-value <0.05 was considered as significant.


Out of 30 participants, neem toothbrush group had six males and nine females, while the charcoal toothbrush group had seven males and eight females (Table/Fig 2). The mean age for both the groups were 37.03±1.28 years. There were no dropouts. In group I when baseline was compared with 7th day, there was no statistically significant difference p-value=0.232. When the baseline was compared with 15th day, mean difference was found to be highly significant p-value=0.001. In group II significant difference was found in the mean plaque score between three time intervals. When baseline was compared with 15th day, the mean difference was 0.57 which was also highly significant (p-value=0.001). When 7th day was compared with 15th day the mean difference was -0.87 and statistically significant difference was p-value=0.001 (Table/Fig 3). The difference in the values indicates the significant reduction in plaque accumulation occurring in charcoal group than the neem group.

(Table/Fig 4) shows the comparison of neem toothbrush group and charcoal toothbrush group with respect to total plaque scores at baseline, 7th day, and 15th day. The mean plaque score on the 15th day between the two groups showed high statistically significant difference with p-value=0.004. Thus, charcoal toothbrush was more effective in plaque removal when compared to neem toothbrushes.


After using the neem toothbrush and charcoal toothbrush, significant reduction in plaque score was noted from baseline to 15th day in both the groups. The results showed that neem and charcoal both preserved the oral hygiene, but charcoal reduced plaque more efficiently than neem toothbrush. Hence, incorporating herbal content to a toothbrush can improve plaque reduction (19).

A study carried out by Kaur A et al., compared Colgate sensitive and Colgate-17 X slim soft charcoal toothbrush. Colgate sensitive had a plaque score of 1.062, whereas Colgate thin soft charcoal toothbrush had a plaque score of 0.750. Therefore, they concluded that charcoal toothbrush was more effective than Colgate sensitive toothbrush (20). The mean plaque score of charcoal toothbrush in this study also decreased from 2.18 to 0.61 from baseline to 15th day which indicates effectiveness of charcoal brush.

Bhat DS et al., conducted a study to compare the efficacy of charcoal and conventional toothbrushes to control plaque and maintain periodontal health. On observation of the study there was a reduction in the plaque score, at baseline, two weeks and one month. They concluded that while charcoal toothbrushes are useful in improving periodontal health, conventional toothbrushes are more effective in removing plaque than charcoal toothbrushes. (12). However, in the present study, significant reduction in plaque scores were observed in charcoal toothbrush group after 15 days. The decrease in plaque score is attributed to the fact that blending charcoal into nylon bristles can reduce plaque, halitosis (as charcoal has adsorptive and non toxic properties), and also kill bacteria that may develop in the bristles during storage, reducing bacterial contamination of toothbrushes, according to the manufacturers of these toothbrushes. It has high whitening action by eliminating discolouration and fruitful in removing oral germs, odour, and acids (14).

Iyer N et al., stated that while choosing a toothbrush, the bristles are the most significant reflection. Now-a-days a lot of variations in toothbrushes are available along with the persistent advancement of brushes (21). Charcoal toothbrushes have also known to inhibit the microbial proliferation, reduce oral malodour and improve the efficacy of plaque removal as per a study conducted by Al-Ahmad A et al., (22).

A study conducted by Bhambal A et al., found no difference in plaque and gingival scores for different sites using neem stick and toothbrush when 30 subjects of age 18-25 years were examined using Quigley Hein Plaque Index (QHPI) (23). The authors concluded that chewing sticks have usefulness because of their mechanical cleaning action, chemically reduction in the plaque formation and have antibacterial properties against a variety of oral bacteria (23). In the present study also, the neem toothbrush was efficient in plaque removal.


The present study was limited by its small sample size.


After evaluation, use of charcoal toothbrush reduced plaque more effectively than neem toothbrush. Accordingly, it can be concluded that plaque removal efficacy of charcoal toothbrush was higher than neem toothbrush for maintaining the oral hygiene. More studies with a larger sample size are necessary to validate the findings of this study.


Aggarwal N, Gupta S, Grover R, Sadana G, Bansal K. Plaque removal efficacy of different toothbrushes: A comparative study. Int J Clin Pediatr Dent. 2019;12(5):385-90. doi: 10.5005/jp-journals-10005-1669. PMID: 32440042; PMCID: PMC7229370. [crossref] [PubMed]
Biesbrock AR, Walters PA, Bartizek RD, Goyal CR, Qaqish JG. Plaque removal efficacy of an advanced rotation-oscillation power toothbrush versus a new sonic toothbrush. Am J Dent. 2008;21(3):185-88. PMID: 18686772.
Anas B, ElM M, Abdelhadi M, Zahra LF, Hamza M. A single-brushing study to compare plaque removal efficacy of a manual toothbrush, an electric toothbrush and an ultrasonic toothbrush. J Oral Hyg Health. 2018;6(249):2332-0702. [crossref]
Penick C. Power toothbrushes: A critical review. Int J Dent Hyg. 2004;2(1):40- 44. [crossref] [PubMed]
Tadinada A, Kilham J, Bysani P, Gopalakrishna A. The evolution of a tooth brush: From antiquity to present-A mini-review. J Dent Health Oral Disord Ther. 2015;2(4):127-30. [crossref]
Tangade PS, Shah AF, Tl R, Tirth A, Pal S. Is plaque removal efficacy of toothbrush related to bristle flaring? A 3-month prospective parallel experimental study. Ethiop J Health Sci. 2013;23(3):255-64. [crossref] [PubMed]
Bhanji S, Williams B, Sheller B, Elwood T, Mancl L. Transient bacteremia induced by toothbrushing: A comparison of the Sonicare toothbrush with a conventional toothbrush. Pediatr Dent. 2002;24(4):295-300.
William Addis, Wadsworth HN, DuPont. Library of Congress. Who invented the toothbrush and when was it invented? Everyday Mysteries. 1938.
Cugini MA, Warren PR, Cugini M. The Oral-B cross action manual toothbrush: A 5-year literature review. Journal (Canadian Dental Association). 2006;72(4).
Mehta S, Vyaasini CS, Jindal L, Sharma V, Jasuja T. Toothbrush, its design and modifications: An Overview. Journal of Current Medical Research and Opinion. 2020;3(08):570. [crossref]
Ramachandra SS, Dicksit DD, Gundavarapu KC. Oral health: Charcoal brushes. Br Dent J. 2014;217(1):3. [crossref] [PubMed]
Bhat DS, Dsouza JB, Bhat PR, Bhat MA, Trasad VA, Acharya AB, et al. Evaluation of the efficacy of charcoal coated toothbrush and conventional toothbrush in periodontal health: A comparative clinical study. MJDS. 2020;5(1):01-05.
Thamke MV, Beldar A, Thakkar P, Murkute S, Ranmare V, Hudwekar A, et al. Comparison of bacterial contamination and antibacterial efficacy in bristles of charcoal toothbrushes versus noncharcoal toothbrushes: A microbiological study. Contemp Clin Dent. 2018;9(3):463.
AlDhawi RZ, AlNaqa NH, Tashkandi OE, Gamal AT, AlShammery HF, Eltom SM, et al. Antimicrobial efficacy of charcoal vs. non-charcoal toothbrushes: A randomised controlled study. J Int Soc Prev Community Dent. 2020;10(6):719.
Kausik Biswas, Chattopadhyay I, Banerjee RK, Bandyopadhyay U. Biological Activities and Medicinal Properties of Neem (Azadirachta Indica). Current Science. 2002;82(11):1336-45. Accessed 5 May 2022.
Chaurasia A. Neem in oral diseases-An update. Oral Med Oral Surg Oral Pathol Oral Radiol. 2016;2(1):01-03. [crossref]
Silness P, Loe H. The gingival index, the plaque index and the retention index systems. J Periodontol. 1967;38(6):610-16. Doi: 10.1902/jop.1967.38.6.610. PMID: 5237684. [crossref] [PubMed]
Janakiram C, Taha F, Joe J. The efficacy of plaque control by various toothbrushing techniques-A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin of Diagn Res. 2018;12(11):ZE01-06. [crossref]
Janakiram C, Venkitachalam R, Fontelo P, Iafolla TJ, Dye BA. Effectiveness of herbal oral care products in reducing dental plaque & gingivitis-A systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Complement Med Ther. 2020;20:43. https:// [crossref] [PubMed]
Kaur A, Singh RA, Bhola K, Khilji I, Dhawan S, Kochar D, et al. Comparative Assessment of the efficacy of two commercially available manual tooth brushes for removal of dental plaque. J Adv Med Dent Scie Res. 2018;6(9):62-65.
Iyer N, Chandna S, Dhindsa A, Damle D, Loomba A. Plaque removal efficacy of Colgate 360 toothbrush: A clinical study. Contemp Clin Dent. 2016;7(3):317. [crossref] [PubMed]
Al-Ahmad A, Wiedmann-Al-Ahmad M, Deimling D, Jaser C, Pelz K, Wittmer A, et al. An antimicrobial effect from silver-coated toothbrush heads. Am J Dent. 2010;23:251-54.
Bhambal A, Kothari S, Saxena S, Jain M. Comparative effect of neemstick and toothbrush on plaque removal and gingival health-A clinical trial. J Adv Oral Research. 2011;3(3):51-56. [crossref]

DOI and Others

DOI: 10.7860/JCDR/2022/55416.17036

Date of Submission: Feb 03, 2022
Date of Peer Review: Mar 04, 2022
Date of Acceptance: Jul 13, 2022
Date of Publishing: Oct 01, 2022

• Financial or Other Competing Interests: None
• Was Ethics Committee Approval obtained for this study? Yes
• Was informed consent obtained from the subjects involved in the study? Yes
• For any images presented appropriate consent has been obtained from the subjects. NA

• Plagiarism X-checker: Feb 08, 2022
• Manual Googling: Jun 23, 2022
• iThenticate Software: Jul 12, 2022 (11%)

ETYMOLOGY: Author Origin

JCDR is now Monthly and more widely Indexed .
  • Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science, thomsonreuters)
  • Index Copernicus ICV 2017: 134.54
  • Academic Search Complete Database
  • Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ)
  • Embase
  • EBSCOhost
  • Google Scholar
  • HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme
  • Indian Science Abstracts (ISA)
  • Journal seek Database
  • Google
  • Popline (reproductive health literature)