ArticleClinical oral investigations2014
Efficacy of various side-to-side toothbrushes for noncontact biofilm removal.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Microbial Biofilm Decontamination on Dental Implant Surfaces: A Mini Review.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2021Pooled it
- Effect of Dentifrice Ingredients on Volume and Vitality of a Simulated Periodontal Multispecies Biofilm.Dentistry journal · 2024Article
- Interdental biofilm reduction and composition after use of an activated and inactivated side-to-side toothbrush - a proof-of-principle clinical study.Clinical oral investigations · 2022Article
- Powered Toothbrushes: An Opportunity for Biofilm and Gingival Inflammation Control.International journal of dentistry · 2022Review
- Influence of the amplitude of different side-to-side toothbrushes on noncontact biofilm removal.Clinical oral investigations · 2019Article
- Influence of the oscillation frequency of different side-to-side toothbrushes on noncontact biofilm removal.Clinical oral investigations · 2018Article
- Efficacy of various side-to-side toothbrushes and impact of brushing parameters on noncontact biofilm removal in an interdental space model.Clinical oral investigations · 2017Article
- Interproximal biofilm removal by intervallic use of a sonic toothbrush compared to an oral irrigation system.BMC oral health · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of four different powered toothbrushes with side-to-side action for noncontact biofilm removal in vitro. MATERIALS AND
methodsA three-species biofilm was formed in vitro on protein-coated titanium disks using a flow chamber combined with a static biofilm growth model. Subsequently, the biofilm-coated substrates were exposed to four different side-to-side toothbrushes (A, B, C, and D) with various brushing times (2, 4, and 6 s) and brushing (bristle-to-disk) distances (0, 2, and 4 mm). The biofilm volumes were measured using volumetric analyses with confocal laser scanning microscope images and Imaris version 7.5.2 software.
resultsThe median percentages of biofilm reduction by the analyzed toothbrushes ranged from 9 % to 80 %. The abilities of the tested toothbrushes to remove the in vitro biofilm differed significantly (p < 0.05). Two of the tested toothbrushes (C and D) were capable of significant biofilm reduction by noncontact brushing.
conclusionsIt was possible to reduce a three-species in vitro biofilm by noncontact brushing with two out of four side-to-side toothbrushes. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Toothbrushes C and D show in vitro a high efficacy in biofilm removal without bristle contact.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23873325What 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.