Dental and Periodontal health
Shopping Cart
Bookmark and Share
Clinical studies

Trials with the electric toothbrush Sonicare 9306

1) “In Vitro” trials on our cleaning testing machine

After the Sonicare has been fully charged during minimum 10 hours (as recommeded in the instructions) it has been tested on our “in vitro” machine in the same conditions as the BX-2000, Interplak, Braun etc. have been tested.

As usual the tests have been made with forces of application of the brush stem against the teeth of 150, 250 and 350g.


It is more than evident that the cleaning performances (wathever the force of application) are very close to zero. In fact, in our standard scale of evaluation, graduated from 1 (very bad cleaning action) to 6 (almost perfect cleaning action), Sonicare is even inferior to 1.

For memory, the cleaning quality indexes with other electric toothbrushes are following:

BX-2000 with crenelated Combi Brush-Stem 5,3
Interplak (with standard Brush-Stem) 4,9
Braun (with Brush-Stem sold with device 2,3
Sonicare (with Brush-Stem sold with device) 1

2) Brush Head System

The Brush stem with its driving and attachment system is technically totally crazy. Furthermore, the system is still a better microbial reservoir than Interplak and is almost impossible to clean.

3) Conclusions

Among all electric toothbrushes on the market, it can be said that Sonicare is the less effective:

  • Almost no cleaning action (plaque removal close to zero)
  • High frequency vibration unpleasant for many of the users
  • Largest microbial reservoir known for an electric toothbrush (still worst than Interplak)
  • Aberration of the technical solution, impossible to clean the brush head properly
  • Handle not watertight (see instruction’s manual page 14)
  • Cost (and volume) of the refill brush totally prohibitive.

Technical claims for the BROXO electric toothbrush (BROXODENT® ['klassik]) with the stem head versus interplak and braun plak control braun plak control

1. Bristled Surface(s) 27 tufts with 1.30mm of diameter =35,8mm² 10 tufts with 2,5mm of diameter = 49,1mm² 28 tufts with 1,70mm of diameter = 63,5mm²
2. % of less bristled surface - 43,6% - 22,7% --
3. Type of brush movement Reciprocating rotation of the brush head Reciprocating rotation of each tuft Reciprocating and arcuate
4. Angle of reciprocation 70° 540° 35°(decrease under abnormal load)
5. Frequency of motion (reciprocation) (f) 51.1 times per second or 3070 times per minute 23.7 times per second or 1420 times per minute 60 times per second or 3600 times per minute
6. % of reciprocation to Broxodent 51.1 times per second or 3070 times per minute 39,4% 100%
7. Number of movements per minute 6140 (decreases under load) 2840 (decreases under load) 7200
8. Average stroke of an average bristle (C) 9,82mm 15,7mm 15,3mm
9. Brushing efficiency index T = S.C.f x 0,001 1079 1094 3491
10. % of brushing efficiency index compared with Broxodent 30,9% 31,3% 100%