An interventional study of Charcoal-Impregnated Toothbrush and Conventional Toothbrush in Oral Hygiene, Toothbrush Contamination and Bacterial Contamination, sponsored by Mohammed V University in Rabat. Completed at 1 site in Morocco. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 24 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2025-12-10.
Sponsored by Mohammed V University in Rabat · Not applicable, Interventional, and Basic science
This randomized controlled clinical trial aims to evaluate the antibacterial effectiveness of toothbrushes with charcoal-impregnated bristles compared to conventional toothbrushes without charcoal. The main objective is to assess and compare the microbial contamination on the toothbrushes after 21 days of use.
Thirty-two healthy dental students from the Faculty of Dental Medicine of Rabat (16 males and 16 females, aged 18-24) were enrolled through convenience sampling. Participants were randomly assigned to two groups:
Group A: Colgate Double Action Medium toothbrushes with charcoal-impregnated bristles.
Group B: Colgate Double Action Medium toothbrushes without charcoal (control group).
Participants brushed their teeth twice daily for two minutes using the rolling technique and a standardized fluoride toothpaste (1450 ppm). They were instructed not to use mouthwash or antiseptic toothpaste, to rinse brushes only with tap water (without touching the bristles), to store them vertically with bristles facing upward, and to keep them uncovered and at least one meter away from toilets.
After 21 days, used toothbrushes were collected in sterile pouches and transferred to the microbiology laboratory. A quarter of the bristles from each brush head was aseptically cut, immersed in sterile saline solution, and vortexed to dislodge microorganisms. Aliquots of 200 µL were inoculated onto blood agar (Columbia agar base enriched with sterile blood). After incubation at 37°C for 48 hours, colony-forming units (CFU) were manually counted to estimate microbial contamination levels (CFU/mL).
Clinical data (Silness and Löe plaque index, Löe and Silness gingival index, and DMF index) were collected at baseline.
Statistical analysis was performed using Jamovi software. The comparison of CFU counts between groups aimed to determine whether charcoal impregnation reduces microbial contamination of toothbrush bristles.
This study involves minimal risk and no investigational drug or device. Ethical approval was obtained from the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Dental Medicine of Rabat.
Background and Rationale
Toothbrushes are essential oral hygiene tools, but they can act as reservoirs for microorganisms due to their humid storage environment. This bacterial colonization may reintroduce pathogens into the oral cavity, increasing the risk of oral and systemic infections. Activated charcoal, known for its adsorption capacity and antibacterial potential, has been incorporated into dental products, including toothbrush bristles. However, evidence regarding its effect on bacterial contamination of toothbrushes remains limited.
This trial aims to evaluate whether charcoal-infused bristles reduce microbial contamination compared to standard nylon bristles after 21 days of regular use.
Study Objectives
Primary Objective:
To assess the reduction of microbial contamination (CFU/mL) on charcoal-infused toothbrushes compared to conventional toothbrushes after 21 days of use.
Secondary Objective:
To analyze potential oral health-based differences in microbial contamination
Study Design
Type: Randomized Controlled Trial
Design: Parallel, two-arm
Duration: 21 days of intervention
Randomization: 1:1 allocation (computer-generated random numbers)
Blinding: Due to the visible color difference between charcoal-infused and conventional toothbrush bristles, participant blinding was not feasible.; laboratory analysis conducted under coded anonymity.
Study Setting: Faculty of Dental Medicine, Rabat, Morocco
Study Population 4.1 Inclusion Criteria
Dental students (4th or 5th year) aged 18-24 years.
Regular manual toothbrush users.
Good general and oral health.
Willingness to comply with study instructions.
Signed informed consent.
4.2 Exclusion Criteria
Irregular toothbrushing frequency.
Refusal or allergy to charcoal products.
Use of antiseptic toothpaste or mouthwash.
Smoking or alcohol abuse.
Systemic diseases or recent antibiotic therapy (\<4 weeks).
Plaque index >2 or gingival index >2.
Periodontitis, orthodontic appliance wearers, or active oral infections.
4.3 Sample Size
A total of 32 participants (16 males, 16 females) were enrolled, divided equally between the two groups.
Study Procedures 5.1 Baseline Phase - Clinical Assessment
Questionnaire: Participants completed an anonymous health and oral hygiene habits questionnaire (age, medical history, medication use, smoking, brushing frequency, and method).
Clinical Examination: Using a mirror, dental explorer No. 23, and a periodontal probe, caries, restorations, and missing teeth were recorded using the DMF index.
Plaque accumulation and gingival condition were assessed using the Silness \& Löe plaque index and the Löe \& Silness gingival index.
5.2 Randomization and Group Allocation
Eligible participants were randomly assigned to one of two groups:
Group A: Colgate Double Action Medium toothbrushes with charcoal-infused bristles.
Group B: Colgate Double Action Medium toothbrushes without charcoal. Both toothbrushes shared identical designs and bristle firmness.
Intervention Procedures 6.1 Participant Instructions
Participants were instructed to:
Brush twice daily for two minutes using the rolling technique.
Use only the provided fluoride toothpaste (1450 ppm).
Rinse the toothbrush with tap water only-without touching bristles.
Avoid using any mouthwash or antiseptic toothpaste.
Store the toothbrush vertically, bristles up, uncovered, at least 1-2 meters away from toilets.
Record each brushing session on a standardized daily log sheet.
Each participant received:
One assigned toothbrush.
One standardized toothpaste.
One sterile storage pouch for post-study collection.
Sample Collection and Laboratory Procedures
After 21 days, all used toothbrushes were collected in their sterile pouches and labeled with participant codes.
7.1 Preparation of Blood Agar
Columbia agar base was dissolved in distilled water according to manufacturer instructions, sterilized at 121°C for 15 minutes, and cooled to 45-50°C.
Sterile defibrinated blood was aseptically added under a laminar flow hood.
Approximately 20 mL of the medium was poured into sterile Petri dishes, solidified at room temperature, and stored inverted at 4°C until use.
7.2 Preparation of Toothbrush Samples
Approximately one-fourth of the bristles were aseptically cut with a sterile scalpel and transferred into sterile Petri dishes.
The bristles were immersed in 5 mL of sterile saline solution for 10 seconds and vortexed to disperse microorganisms into suspension.
7.3 Inoculation and Incubation
A 200 µL aliquot of each suspension was inoculated on blood agar using sterile swabs.
Plates were incubated at 37°C for 48 hours under aerobic conditions.
7.4 Microbiological Analysis
Colony-forming units (CFU) were manually counted using a digital colony counter.
Results were expressed as CFU/mL.
Statistical analyses were performed using Jamovi software.
Shapiro-Wilk test for normality.
Independent t-test or Mann-Whitney test for intergroup comparisons.
Significance level set at p \< 0.05.
Ethical Considerations
The study protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Dental Medicine, Rabat.
Written informed consent was obtained from all participants.
Participant data were anonymized using unique codes.
No personal identifiers were used in the analyses.
The study involved minimal risk and no investigational drug or device.
Data Management and Confidentiality
All data (clinical, microbiological, and questionnaires) were coded and stored securely. Only authorized investigators had access. Results were analyzed collectively, ensuring participant confidentiality.
Expected Outcomes
The study is expected to demonstrate whether charcoal-impregnated bristle toothbrushes harbor fewer microorganisms after daily use, potentially supporting their antibacterial claims.
Study Limitations
Convenience sampling limits external generalizability.
Microbial identification limited to total CFU count without species differentiation.
No external funding or sponsorship was received. All materials were provided by the investigator. The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Mohammed V University in Rabat is the lead sponsor of 3 studies on the registry; 2 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria
Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.
You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.
Informed consent
Before you join, the study team explains what taking part involves — its purpose, what happens, the risks and possible benefits — and answers your questions, so you can decide freely. Consent is usually recorded on a form (the informed consent form, ICF) signed by you or, where the law allows, by someone legally authorised to decide for you.
You can keep asking questions during the study, you are told of new information that matters, and you can choose to leave at any time.
Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
Participants use a Colgate Double Action Medium toothbrush with charcoal-impregnated bristles twice daily for 2 minutes using the rolling technique. They use standardized fluoride toothpaste (1450 ppm) and follow instructions for proper storage: vertical position, bristles up, uncovered, at least 1-2 meters from toilets. Participants record their daily brushing in a standardized log sheet.
Device: Charcoal-Impregnated Toothbrush
Participants use a Colgate Double Action Medium toothbrush without charcoal twice daily for 2 minutes using the rolling technique. They use the same standardized fluoride toothpaste (1450 ppm) and follow the same storage and logging instructions as Arm 1.
Device: Conventional Toothbrush
Participants use the Colgate Double Action Medium toothbrush with charcoal bristles as described in Arm 1. Daily brushing is twice for 2 minutes, using the rolling technique, with standardized fluoride toothpaste (1450 ppm). Proper storage instructions and daily log recording are followed.
Participants use the Colgate Double Action Medium toothbrush without charcoal bristles as described in Arm 2. Daily brushing is twice for 2 minutes, using the rolling technique, with standardized fluoride toothpaste (1450 ppm). Proper storage instructions and daily log recording are followed.
Reduction of microbial contamination on toothbrush bristles
The primary outcome is the number of colony-forming units (CFU/mL) measured on toothbrush bristles after 21 days of use. A quarter of the bristles from each brush is cut and placed in sterile saline, vortexed to create a suspension, and 200 µL is inoculated on blood agar plates. Plates are incubated at 37°C for 48 hours, and CFU are counted manually. This outcome assesses the effectiveness of charcoal-impregnated bristles in reducing microbial contamination compared to conventional toothbrushes.
Time frame: 21 days
This study is completed, as verified in Nov 2025. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.
Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
Mohammed V University in Rabat