A Preliminary Study
to Determine the Efficacy of the IONFIELD TOOTHBRUSH
in Comparison with Sonicare and Hydrofloss Home Care

The IonField Toothbrush is a standard nylon-bristle brush which has two small metal disks (copper and magnesium alloy) implanted in the back of the toothbrush head. The brush is used without toothpaste, and is simply moistened with water.

(Periodontal disease is inflammatory disease affecting a large percentage of the population. It is caused by specific types of bacteria and the body’s immune reaction to these bacteria. When the disease-producing bacteria are present, the periodontal tissue becomes inflamed and there is resulting gum tissue and supporting bone loss around the involved teeth.  Another concern is that the disease–producing bacteria pass through the inflamed tissue and get into the bloodstream. The exact mechanism is not yet known, but there is a relationship between heart disease, stroke, osteoporosis, asthma and low birth-weight babies and periodontal disease.)

A patient who travels extensively wanted to lighten his baggage by finding an effective alternative to his standard self-care routine, which included the Sonicare brush and the Hydrofloss irrigation system.  He asked me to evaluate a simple new toothbrush that he had purchased from a Japanese company. I utilized the following experimental protocol:

The subject used the IonField Toothbrush brush on the right half of the mouth, and used the Sonicare system with toothpaste on the left. The changes in bacteria levels on the respective sides of the mouth were charted against a baseline reading taken at the start of the experiment. After a period of twenty-one days, new measurements were taken. Then the two methods were reversed (to the opposite sides of the mouth) and applied for an additional twenty-one days. Another comparative reading was made.

In the third phase of the experiment, the IonField Toothbrush was used exclusively on both sides for a period of three months. A final bacterial slide was made to evaluate the long-term effects of using this brush alone.  (The use of dental floss was continued throughout all phases of the experiment.)


SUMMARY:

We compared the IonField Toothbrush to the Sonicare and Hydrofloss systems.

In terms of plaque removal, the IonField Toothbrush compared well with the other instruments.

In terms of bacteria activity as judged by microscopic analysis, the IonField Toothbrush performed very well. While the Sonicare/toothpaste-treated teeth maintained their original level of bacterial activity, the IonField Toothbrush/water-treated side of the mouth showed a significant reduction in such activity – in fact, the bacterial slides were flat.  (This means that NO anaerobic bacteria were found, and there was NO movement of bacteria.)

When judging a bacterial slide for periodontal risk assessment, three factors are evaluated. The shape of the bacteria was examined, as well as the numbers and the amount of movement. A “flat” slide is the best result possible.

This patient was able to maintain his periodontal health with no anaerobic bacteria found in the samples taken. This indicates that the IonField Toothbrush can be a valuable tool in prevention of disease and maintenance of periodontal health.  Further study is suggested to see if this result is consistent for a larger number of patients.

Richard Stickney, DDS
Seattle, WA