ArticleClinical oral investigations2010
Oral biofilm models for mechanical plaque removal.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Effectiveness of Manual Toothbrushing Techniques on Plaque and Gingivitis: A Systematic Review.Oral health & preventive dentistry · 2020Pooled it
- Combination of toothbrushing and chlorhexidine compared with exclusive use of chlorhexidine to reduce the risk of ventilator-associated pneumonia: A systematic review with meta-analysis.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil)Pooled it
- Stimuli-responsive, antimicrobial-loaded nanocarriers for oral biofilm control and microbiome restoration.International journal of oral science · 2026Review
- Microbiome-friendly PS/PVP electrospun fibrous membrane with antibiofilm properties for dental engineering.Regenerative biomaterials · 2024Article
- The influence of microbiota on the development and course of inflammatory diseases of periodontal tissues.Frontiers in oral health · 2023Review
- Biofilm removal from a simulated isthmus and lateral canal during syringe irrigation at various flow rates: a combined experimental and Computational Fluid Dynamics approach.International endodontic journal · 2021Article
- Adjunct use of mouth rinses with a sonic toothbrush accelerates the detachment of a Streptococcus mutans biofilm: an in vitro study.BMC oral health · 2020Article
- Properties of manual toothbrush that influence on plaque removal of interproximal surfaceJournal of dental sciences · 2020Article
- Antibacterial Effect of CupralEuropean endodontic journal · 2020Article
- Effects of flavonol quercetin on activity of lipid peroxide oxidation in experimental bacterial-immune periodontitis.Interventional medicine & applied science · 2019Article
- Experimental Models of Oral Biofilms Developed on Inert Substrates: A Review of the Literature.BioMed research international · 2016Review
- Interproximal biofilm removal by intervallic use of a sonic toothbrush compared to an oral irrigation system.BMC oral health · 2015Article
- Viscoelasticity of biofilms and their recalcitrance to mechanical and chemical challenges.FEMS microbiology reviews · 2015Review
- Antimicrobial penetration in a dual-species oral biofilm after noncontact brushing: an in vitro study.Clinical oral investigations · 2014Article
- Efficacy of various side-to-side toothbrushes for noncontact biofilm removal.Clinical oral investigations · 2014Article
- Brushing without brushing?--a review of the efficacy of powered toothbrushes in noncontact biofilm removal.Clinical oral investigations · 2013Review
- A comparison of the efficacy of powered and manual toothbrushes in controlling plaque and gingivitis: a clinical study.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In vitro plaque removal studies require biofilm models that resemble in vivo dental plaque. Here, we compare contact and non-contact removal of single and dual-species biofilms as well as of biofilms grown from human whole saliva in vitro using different biofilm models. Bacteria were adhered to a salivary pellicle for 2 h or grown after adhesion for 16 h, after which, their removal was evaluated. In a contact mode, no differences were observed between the manual, rotating, or sonic brushing; and removal was on average 39%, 84%, and 95% for Streptococcus mutans, Streptococcus oralis, and Actinomyces naeslundii, respectively, and 90% and 54% for the dual- and multi-species biofilms, respectively. However, in a non-contact mode, rotating and sonic brushes still removed considerable numbers of bacteria (24-40%), while the manual brush as a control (5-11%) did not. Single A. naeslundii and dual-species (A. naeslundii and S. oralis) biofilms were more difficult to remove after 16 h growth than after 2 h adhesion (on average, 62% and 93% for 16- and 2-h-old biofilms, respectively), while in contrast, biofilms grown from whole saliva were easier to remove (97% after 16 h and 54% after 2 h of growth). Considering the strong adhesion of dual-species biofilms and their easier more reproducible growth compared with biofilms grown from whole saliva, dual-species biofilms of A. naeslundii and S. oralis are suggested to be preferred for use in mechanical plaque removal studies in vitro.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.