Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21154357›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2010

Different powered toothbrushes for plaque control and gingival health.

Scott A Deacon, Anne-Marie Glenny, Chris Deery, Peter G Robinson, Mike Heanue, A Damien Walmsley, William C Shaw

Open access · greenAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
40citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
4.5field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

40 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 105 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Powered versus manual toothbrushing for oral health.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014
    Pooled it
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Evaluation of the isosceles-configured SUN TeethCanadian journal of dental hygiene : CJDH = Journal canadien de l'hygiene dentaire : JCHD · 2021
    Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Trial
  14. Trial
  15. Trial
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Trial
  20. Trial
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.

Scott A DeaconSouth West Cleft Unit, Frenchay Hospital, Frenchay Park Road, Bristol, UK, BS16 1LE.
Anne-Marie Glenny
Chris Deery
Peter G Robinson
Mike Heanue
A Damien Walmsley
William C Shaw
University of Manchester · GBUniversity Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity Of Bristol Dental Hospital · GBUniversity of Sheffield · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPowered brushes were first introduced commercially in the 1960s. A recent systematic review suggested the superiority of certain modes of powered over manual toothbrushing for plaque and gingivitis reduction. That review did not allow for direct comparison between different modes of powered toothbrush.

objectivesTo compare different modes of powered toothbrushing against each other for plaque reduction and the health of the gingivae. Other factors to be assessed were calculus and stain removal, cost, dependability and adverse effects. SEARCH STRATEGY: The following databases were searched: Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 26 July 2010); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 3); MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 26 July 2010); EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 26 July 2010); CINAHL via EBSCO (1982 to 26 July 2010). There were no language restrictions. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials were considered for inclusion with the following criteria: random allocation of participants; no compromised manual dexterity; unsupervised powered toothbrushing for at least 4 weeks. The primary outcomes were the plaque and gingivitis scores after powered toothbrush use during trial period. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data extraction was performed independently and in duplicate. The authors of trials were contacted to provide missing data where possible. The effect measure for each meta-analysis was the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the random-effects model. Potential sources of heterogeneity were assessed. MAIN

resultsThe review included data from 15 trials with 1015 participants. Due to the dearth of trials assessing the same mode of action, no definitive conclusions can be stated regarding the superiority of one mode of powered toothbrush over any other. Only minor and transient side effects were reported. Cost, dependability were not reported. AUTHORS'

conclusionsFurther trials of good quality are required to establish if any mode of action has superiority over the other modes of action for powered toothbrushes.

Indexed as

Dental Devices, Home CareDental PlaqueGingivitisHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicToothbrushing

Identifiers

PMID21154357
PMCPMC8406707
OpenAlexW2147952931

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.