Trial reportClinical oral investigations2010
Plaque removal efficacy of power and manual toothbrushes: a comparative study.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03099551 (Randomized Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy of Two Different Toothbrushes on Plaque Control), which is not on this map. Cited by 7 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Randomized Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy of Two Different Toothbrushes on Plaque Control
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The efficacy of powered toothbrushes: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.International journal of dental hygiene · 2022Pooled it
- How effective is a powered toothbrush as compared to a manual toothbrush? A systematic review and meta-analysis of single brushing exercises.International journal of dental hygiene · 2020Pooled it
- Powered versus manual toothbrushing for oral health.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014Pooled it
- Cleansing efficacy of an auto-cleaning electronic toothbrushing device: a randomized-controlled crossover pilot study.Clinical oral investigations · 2021Trial
- Comparison Between Powered and Manual Toothbrushes Effectiveness for Maintaining an Optimal Oral Health Status.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry · 2024Review
- Electric and Manual Oral Hygiene Routines Affect Plaque Index Score Differently.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- A laboratory based investigation of a new elastic toothbrush head.TheScientificWorldJournal · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the plaque removal efficacy of a new oscillating/rotating/pulsating toothbrush [Oral-B Professional Care 8500 (PC 8500)] with two manual toothbrushes [Oral-B CrossAction Vitalizer (CAV) and Oral-B Indicator (IND), respectively]. The safety of the PC 8500 was also assessed. The study was a single-use, observer-masked, randomised 3 x 3 Latin square crossover design balanced for carryover effects. The enrolled subjects (n = 66) refrained from brushing for 23-25 h before each clinical examination. Plaque scores were recorded before and after brushing with the allocated toothbrush using the Turesky et al. modification of the Quigley and Hein plaque index. The safety was assessed evaluating the soft tissue conditions present after 30 days of the use of the PC 8500. The PC 8500 toothbrush was better in plaque removal efficacy compared with the CAV and IND brushes for full mouth and approximal surfaces (P < 0.01). When marginal surfaces were considered, the PC 8500 was significantly more effective than the IND (P < 0.01). No significant differences were found between PC 8500 and CAV (P > 0.05). The latter was shown to be significantly more effective than the IND at all tooth surfaces (P < 0.01). Safety examinations revealed the onset of only two small gingival abrasions after the 30-day use of the PC 8500. The PC 8500 toothbrush demonstrated to be more effective in plaque control than the CAV and IND in the full mouth and approximal surfaces and similar to the CAV in the marginal surfaces. The PC 8500 was safe to oral tissues in long-term use.
Indexed as
Identifiers
19548011What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.