ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2012
No differences in gingival health associated outcomes following single-visit scale and polish.
Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
- Comment on
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
STUDY
designRandomised controlled three-arm parallel clinical trial set in general dental practice.
interventionThree hundred and sixty-nine patients were recruited to the trial. To be included patients had to be regular attenders aged 18 to 60 years with 20 or more teeth and BPE codes <3 and DT<4. They were excluded if they wore an intra-oral applicance or had systemic conditions or used medication that could predispose to periodontal disease. Participants were randomised to have single-visit scale and polish at 6 month, 12 month or 24 month intervals and treatment was carried out by nine hygienists and therapists. Randomisation was performed centrally at a distant site by the trial manager and participants were not informed for their treatment allocation until they returned for their 6-month recall. Allocation was not explicitly revealed to the dentist, and participants were asked not to reveal their allocation group to the dentist or the outcome examiner. OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcome measure was presence of gingival bleeding. Secondary outcome measures were presence of plaque and presence and amount of calculus.
resultsData were collected for 83.5% of the original participants and 76.2% attended all five appointments. There were no statistically significant differences in prevalence of gingival bleeding at follow-up for each group: 6-month recall group 78.5%; 12-month group 78% and 24-month group 82% (p=0.746). There were also no differences between groups at follow-up for prevalence of plaque and calculus.
conclusionsThis trial did not identify any differences in gingival health associated outcomes for single-visit scale and polish provided at 6-, 12- and 24-month frequencies for healthy patients. However, the results are not conclusive and larger trials with more comprehensive measurements are needed.
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.