Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24871587›Full record

Observational studyInternational journal of dental hygiene2014

Gingival abrasion and recession in manual and oscillating-rotating power brush users.

N A M Rosema, R Adam, J M Grender, E Van der Sluijs, S C Supranoto, G A Van der Weijden

Abstract readComparative StudyObservational Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Observational study in International journal of dental hygiene, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Exploring Toothbrushing Duration Among Adults: A Systematic Review.International journal of dental hygiene · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Observational
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

N A M RosemaDepartment of Periodontology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam, ACTA, University of Amsterdam and VU University Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
R Adam
J M Grender
E Van der Sluijs
S C Supranoto
G A Van der Weijden

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo assess gingival recession (GR) in manual and power toothbrush users and evaluate the relationship between GR and gingival abrasion scores (GA).

methodsThis was an observational (cross-sectional), single-centre, examiner-blind study involving a single-brushing exercise, with 181 young adult participants: 90 manual brush users and 91 oscillating-rotating power brush users. Participants were assessed for GR and GA as primary response variables. Secondary response variables were the level of gingival inflammation, plaque score reduction and brushing duration. Pearson correlation was used to describe the relationship between number of recession sites and number of abrasions. Prebrushing (baseline) and post-brushing GA and plaque scores were assessed and differences analysed using paired tests. Two-sample t-test was used to analyse group differences; ancova was used for analyses of post-brushing changes with baseline as covariate.

resultsOverall, 97.8% of the study population had at least one site of ≥1 mm of gingival recession. For the manual group, this percentage was 98.9%, and for the power group, this percentage was 96.7% (P = 0.621). Post-brushing, the power group showed a significantly smaller GA increase than the manual group (P = 0.004); however, there was no significant correlation between number of recession sites and number of abrasions for either group (P ≥ 0.327).

conclusionsLittle gingival recession was observed in either toothbrush user group; the observed GR levels were comparable. Lower post-brushing gingival abrasion levels were seen in the power group. There was no correlation between gingival abrasion as a result of brushing and the observed gingival recession following use of either toothbrush.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultColoring AgentsCross-Sectional StudiesDental PlaqueDental Plaque IndexEquipment DesignFemaleGingivaGingival RecessionGingivitisHumansMalePeriodontal IndexPeriodontal PocketSingle-Blind MethodColoring Agentsgingival abrasiongingival recessiongingivitisplaquetoothbrushing

Identifiers

PMID24871587
PMCPMC4265303

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.