Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28905123›Full record

Trial reportClinical oral investigations2018

No difference between manual and different power toothbrushes with and without specific instructions in young, oral healthy adults-results of a randomized clinical trial.

Gerhard Schmalz, Katharina Kiehl, Jan Schmickler, Sven Rinke, Jana Schmidt, Felix Krause, Rainer Haak, Dirk Ziebolz

Erratum issuedAbstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
1.7field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 17 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. One-to-one oral hygiene advice provided in a dental setting for oral health.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Gerhard SchmalzDepartment of Cariology, Endodontology and Periodontology, University Medical Center Leipzig, Liebigstr. 10-14, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Katharina KiehlDepartment of Cariology, Endodontology and Periodontology, University Medical Center Leipzig, Liebigstr. 10-14, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Jan SchmicklerDepartment of Cariology, Endodontology and Periodontology, University Medical Center Leipzig, Liebigstr. 10-14, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Sven RinkeDental Practice Hanau & Alzenau, Hanau, Germany.
Jana SchmidtDepartment of Cariology, Endodontology and Periodontology, University Medical Center Leipzig, Liebigstr. 10-14, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Felix KrauseDepartment of Cariology, Endodontology and Periodontology, University Medical Center Leipzig, Liebigstr. 10-14, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Rainer HaakDepartment of Cariology, Endodontology and Periodontology, University Medical Center Leipzig, Liebigstr. 10-14, 04103, Leipzig, Germany.
Dirk ZiebolzDepartment of Cariology, Endodontology and Periodontology, University Medical Center Leipzig, Liebigstr. 10-14, 04103, Leipzig, Germany. dirk.ziebolz@medizin.uni-leipzig.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9810-2368
Leipzig University · DEKlinikum Hanau · DEUniversity Hospital Leipzig · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe aim of this randomized clinical study was to detect the effect of an instruction within a group using oscillating-rotating (OR), sonic-active (SA), or manual toothbrushes (MTB) in young, oral healthy adults.

methodsOne hundred fifty participants were randomly assigned into six groups (n = 25): with (OR-I, SA-I, MTB-I) and without instruction (OR-NI, SA-NI, MTB-NI). Participants in I subgroups received one standardized instruction of the toothbrush system. At baseline (t0), after 2 (t1), 4 (t2), and 12 weeks (t3), plaque indices including modified Quigley-Hein Index (QHI) and Marginal Plaque Index (MPI) as well as inflammation indices including Papilla Bleeding Index (PBI) and Gingival Index (GI) were assessed. Kruskal-Wallis test, Friedman test, and chi-square or Fisher's exact test (p < 0.05) were used for statistical analysis.

resultsOne hundred thirty-one participants completed the follow-up and were analyzed: OR-I = 21, OR-NI = 22, SA-I = 22, SA-NI = 22, MTB-I = 22, and MTB-NI = 22. Within groups between t0 and t3, OR and SA systems showed a significant plaque reduction, irrespective of instruction (p

conclusionThe used toothbrush as well as the presence or absence of a single brush-specific instruction has no influence on plaque removal and reduction of gingival inflammation in young, oral healthy adults in an observation period of 12 weeks. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: A single instruction might bring no benefit in this patient group, independently of the used toothbrush system.

Indexed as

Dental Devices, Home CarePatient Education as TopicDental Plaque IndexElectrical Equipment and SuppliesEquipment DesignFemaleHealthy VolunteersHumansMalePeriodontal IndexToothbrushingYoung AdultClinical trialDental plaqueManual toothbrushOral hygiene instructionOscillating-rotatingSonic-activeToothbrushing

Identifiers

PMID28905123
OpenAlexW4234536779

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.