ArticleTheScientificWorldJournal2014
A laboratory based investigation of a new elastic toothbrush head.
Article in TheScientificWorldJournal, 2014. 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.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo demonstrate the noninferiority of a new toothbrush head with retractile bristles compared to traditional toothbrush heads on dental models.
methodsThe new toothbrush head, mounted on manual and electrical handles, presents retractile bristle groups that can singularly retract over its entire length and offer calibrated resistance. Fourteen gypsum models of dental arches, twelve with and two without anatomical impairments, were spread with a "plaque simulator." Each arch was brushed twice with each of the four toothbrushes, one minute by the same operator, blinded to the study. The plaque index (PI) was recorded at the end of each brushing session. GLM for repeated measures analysed the data.
resultsOn all the casts, the manual prototype and the electric prototype, removed 11% and 14% more "plaque simulator" compared to the standard toothbrush. In presence of dental anomalies, the prototypes removed 13% and 16% more plaque, respectively, compared to standard toothbrushes (P = 0.04). In both situations, the 95% confidence intervals of PI did not include -10% (the minimal margin of clinical relevance).
conclusionsThe prototype is more effective in removing plaque from the casts with anomalies. The noninferiority of the prototype with respect to the standard toothbrushes was demonstrated.
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.