Trial reportEuropean archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry2018
Effectiveness of plaque removal with an experimental chewable brush in children between age 9 and 13 years.
Trial report in European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry, 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, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- T-shaped toothbrush for plaque removal and gingival health in children: a randomized controlled trial.BMC oral health · 2022Trial
- Comparative Evaluation of Plaque Removal Potential of Manual Electrical and Chewable Toothbrushes in Children: A Clinical Trial.International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 2024Article
- Detection of dental plaque with disclosing agents in the context of preventive oral hygiene training programs.Heliyon · 2019Article
- Plaque Removal Efficiency of Chewable Toothbrushes among 10-12-yearold Children: A Randomized Control Trial.Journal of International Society of Preventive & Community DentistryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo evaluate the effectiveness of plaque removal of an experimental chewable brush in comparison with a manual brush in children between age 9 and 13 years.
methodThis single blinded randomised controlled study included a total of 60 healthy children between age 9 and 13 years that fulfilled the selection criteria. Selected children were randomly assigned to manual toothbrush group (MT) and chewable toothbrush group (CT). Children were instructed to use the respective toothbrushes under supervision. Effectiveness of plaque removal was evaluated by recording Turesky's modification of Quigley-Hein index scores (TMQHI) before and after brushing on single use. Difference in the pre-brushing and post-brushing plaque scores between the groups were statistically compared by using Mann-Whitney U test.
resultsTMQHI plaque scores of selected children for the MT and CT groups was found to be statistically similar before using the toothbrush (p = 0.072). Difference between overall plaque reduction scores were found to be 1.0 for MT and 1.13 for CT, which did not reveal statistical significance (p = 0.308). In order to evaluate efficiency of chewable toothbrush, TMQHI scores for buccal and lingual scores were analysed separately, and found no statistical significance in plaque removal on either surfaces (p = 0.944 for buccal, p = 0.080 for lingual).
conclusionsChewable toothbrush was found to be as effective in total plaque removal as manual tooth brushing in the children between age 9 and 13 years. The chewable brush may be an appropriate oral hygiene adjunct for school children spending a considerable amount of time out of home.
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.