ArticleClinical oral investigations2016
Performance of a light fluorescence device for the detection of microbial plaque and gingival inflammation.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Using Different Low-Profile Abutments for Assisting Mandibular Implant Overdenture: A Split-Mouth Study.International journal of dentistry · 2022Article
- Light-Induced Fluorescence-Based Device and Hybrid Mobile App for Oral Hygiene Management at Home: Development and Usability Study.JMIR mHealth and uHealth · 2020Article
- Clinical applications of intraoral camera to increase patient compliance - current perspectives.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry · 2019Article
- Observational
- Clinical validation and assessment of a modular fluorescent imaging system and algorithm for rapid detection and quantification of dental plaque.BMC oral health · 2017Article
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe hypothesis to be tested was that using the SOPROCARE system in fluorescence perio-mode allows scoring of microbial plaque that is comparable to the Turesky modification of the Quigley Hein plaque index (T-QH) and scoring of gingival inflammation comparable to the Silness and Löe gingival inflammation index (GI). MATERIALS AND
methodsFifty-five subjects with various amounts of microbial plaque were recruited. The T-QH and GI index were recorded. SOPROCARE pictures were recorded in fluorescence perio-mode and in daylight mode. Finally, conventional digital photographs were taken. All pictures were assessed using the same criteria as described for the clinical indices.
resultsThe average T-QH was 1.1 ± 1.2 (mean ± SD). Scoring with SOPROCARE perio-mode led to a slightly higher average than the T-QH scores. SOPROCARE daylight mode and digital photography showed the highest plaque scores. The average GI index was 0.7 ± 0.9. SOPROCARE in perio-mode scored slightly lower. Linear regression fits between the different clinical indices and SOPROCARE scores were significantly different from zero demonstrating high goodness of fit.
conclusionsThe study demonstrated that the SOPROCARE fluorescence assessment tool in perio-mode allows reliable judgment of microbial plaque and gingival inflammation levels similar to the established Turesky-modified Quigley Hein index and the Silness and Löe gingival inflammation index. Training on plaque-free teeth will actually reduce scoring errors. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The SOPROCARE fluorescence tool in perio-mode provides reliable evaluation of microbial plaque and gingival inflammation for the dental clinician.
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.