ArticleJournal of periodontal & implant science2018
Efficacy of an LED toothbrush on a
Article in Journal of periodontal & implant science, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effects of blue-light LED toothbrush on reducing dental plaque and gingival inflammation in orthodontic patients with fixed appliances: a crossover randomized controlled trial.BMC oral health · 2023Trial
- Repeated irradiation by light-emitting diodes may impede the spontaneous progression of experimental periodontitis: a preclinical study.Journal of periodontal & implant science · 2023Article
- How can biophotonics help dentistry to avoid or minimize cross infection by SARS-CoV-2?Photodiagnosis and photodynamic therapy · 2022Review
- Effects of an electric toothbrush combined with 3-color light-emitting diodes on antiplaque and bleeding control: a randomized controlled study.Journal of periodontal & implant science · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeThe aim of this study was to evaluate the antimicrobial effect of a newly devised toothbrush with light-emitting diodes (LEDs) on
methodsThe study included a control group, a commercial photodynamic therapy (PDT) group, and 3 test groups (B, BL, and BLE). The disks in the PDT group were placed in methylene blue and then irradiated with a diode laser. The B disks were only brushed, the BL disks were brushed with an LED toothbrush, and the BLE disks were placed into erythrosine and then brushed with an LED toothbrush. After the different treatments, bacteria were detached from the disks and spread on selective agar. The number of viable bacteria and percentage of bacterial reduction were determined from colony counts. Scanning electron microscopy was performed to visualize bacterial alterations.
resultsThe number of viable bacteria in the BLE group was significantly lower than that in the other groups (
conclusionsThe findings suggest that an LED toothbrush with erythrosine treatment was more effective than a commercial PDT kit in reducing the number of
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.