Trial reportJournal of clinical periodontology2016
Three-year randomized study of manual and power toothbrush effects on pre-existing gingival recession.
Trial report in Journal of clinical periodontology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 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
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of a powered and a manual toothbrush in subjects susceptible to gingival recession: A 36-month randomized controlled clinical study.International journal of dental hygiene · 2025Trial
- Efficacy of tooth brushing via a three-dimensional motion tracking system for dental plaque control in school children: a randomized controlled clinical trial.BMC oral health · 2022Trial
- A 5-week randomized clinical evaluation of a novel electric toothbrush head with regular and tapered bristles versus a manual toothbrush for reduction of gingivitis and plaque.International journal of dental hygiene · 2019Trial
- Three-year randomized study of manual and power toothbrush effects on pre-existing gingival recession.Journal of clinical periodontology · 2016Trial
- Migration background, oral hygiene behavior and oral health literacy: findings based on a quota-based sample.Frontiers in oral health · 2026Article
- Non-surgical treatment options for gingival recession: a dermatologic perspective.Dermatology online journal · 2025Review
- Impact of public health and patient-centered prevention strategies on periodontitis and caries as causes of tooth loss in high-income countries.Periodontology 2000 · 2025Review
- The Impact of Toothbrushing on Oral Health, Gingival Recession, and Tooth Wear-A Narrative Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Analysis of Primary Tooth Extractions and Associated Factors in 3 to 5-Year-Old Children in Kabul, Afghanistan: A Retrospective Study.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry · 2024Article
- Evaluation of the Efficacy of Manual Toothbrush Versus Power Toothbrush in Reduction of Gingivitis: A Comparative Clinical Study.Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2022Article
- Powered Toothbrushes: An Opportunity for Biofilm and Gingival Inflammation Control.International journal of dentistry · 2022Review
- Periodontal Conditions and Pathogens Associated with Pre-Eclampsia: A Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Impact of Powered Toothbrush Use and Interdental Cleaning on Oral Health.Journal of dental research · 2021Article
- Long-term impact of powered toothbrush on oral health: 11-year cohort study.Journal of clinical periodontology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo compare long-term effects of brushing with an oscillating-rotating power toothbrush or an ADA reference manual toothbrush on pre-existing gingival recession. MATERIALS AND
methodsIn this controlled, prospective, single-blind, parallel-group study, healthy subjects with pre-existing recession were randomized and brushed with a power toothbrush (n = 55) or an ADA reference manual toothbrush (n = 54) for a 3-year study period. Subjects were required to brush their teeth twice daily for 2 min. using a standard fluoride toothpaste. During the study, subjects were assessed for clinical attachment loss and probing pocket depths to the nearest mm at six sites per tooth by the same calibrated examiner. Gingival recession was calculated at pre-existing sites as the difference between clinical attachment loss and probing pocket depths. Hard and soft oral tissues were examined to assess safety.
resultsAfter 35 ± 2 months, mean gingival recession did not differ significantly between groups, but was significantly reduced from baseline (p < 0.001), from 2.35 ± 0.35 mm to 1.90 ± 0.58 mm in the power and from 2.26 ± 0.31 mm to 1.81 ± 0.66 mm in the manual group.
conclusionsGingival recession in subjects with pre-existing recession was significantly reduced after 3 years of brushing with either a power or manual toothbrush.
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.