How this site works

What is here

53 electric toothbrushes from 9 makers, with handles priced from $16 to $380 on the makers’ own stores, each with a page of its own, plus 6 computed shortlists, 53 head-to-head comparisons and 8 explainers. The catalog was last refreshed on 2026-09-30.

A brush is listed only while its maker’s own US store sells it new. Models that are listed but not purchasable, sold only as twin packs, or sold only through other shops are left out, and the reasons are recorded alongside the data.

Where the figures come from

Every specification comes from the maker: its US product page, its published spec sheet (Philips exposes one per model) or its store. Head prices come from the maker’s own head packs. 138 source URLs are cited across the catalog, and every brush page lists its own. Nothing is taken from a shop listing, and nothing is measured by us: there is no test bench and no one brushing with these on the site’s behalf.

Where a maker does not publish a figure for that exact model, the page leaves it out. A sibling’s number is never borrowed, and where a maker’s own page gives two different figures for the same thing (two battery lives, two mode counts), the field is left blank and the page says why. The one exception is a figure that is plainly a copying slip, such as a block pasted from a sibling model; then the page names the figure used and the one set aside.

What is worked out rather than quoted

Three-year cost. Handle price plus the heads you would buy in 36 months at the maker’s stated interval (three months where it states none), less heads in the box, at the maker’s lowest per-unit multipack price. 50 brushes have one; the rest have no head pack on the maker’s store. The formula, worked through.

What the extra money buys. Within one maker’s range, a brush is set against the cheapest sibling with the same published speed (or the same maker-named motor where no speed is published) and a pressure sensor, and only the fields that differ are named.

Gum-safety chip. Whether the maker lists a pressure sensor and how it signals, and whether the ADA’s own product search lists the model. 14 do. A maker’s own “ADA accepted” label is not enough on its own, and a missing listing is shown as “no listing found”, never as a failure.

Travel readiness. The maker’s battery figure, how it charges and whether a case is in the box, as one label.

Health claims

This site makes none of its own. Where a page mentions plaque, gums or whitening, it quotes the source: a Cochrane review, the ADA, or the maker, named as the maker’s claim. The explainers list their sources and say what the evidence does not show. Nothing here is dental or medical advice.

Why there are no star ratings

A rating would be shown only with a citable source that is not a shop. None of the 53 brushes has one, so no stars appear anywhere and no review markup is sent to search engines. Nothing ranks brushes by an in-house score: every list states the published figure it is ordered by.

Owner sentiment, and where it is missing

The pros and cons on a brush page come from the maker’s figures, prices and pages. Anything attributed to owners sits in its own section under its own heading, and only for brushes whose owner discussion was actually read. Coverage today is 4 of 53; the other pages say so instead of showing an empty block.

How lists are ordered, and what this site does not do

The catalog’s default order is three-year cost, lowest first. Brand and type pages are ordered by handle price. Every shortlist prints its rule and needs at least three qualifying brushes. Nothing is a paid placement, and no maker has any say in what appears or in what order. Prices are approximate snapshots and will differ from what any shop charges today.

Safety notices

A recall or regulator notice involving a listed model is printed on that model’s page and on its card wherever it appears, with a link to the source, and a recall stops its structured data calling it available. No listed brush carries one: no recall of a model in this catalog was found at the last update.

Who “we” is

A small independent project, not a publication. There is no editorial staff, no dentist on staff and no reviewer. Where the site recommends something it gives the checkable basis, such as “the lowest three-year cost among brushes with a pressure sensor”, rather than an opinion from an implied expert.

Corrections are the fastest way to improve the data: send one.