ArticleBritish dental journal2019
Clinical relevance of dexterity in oral hygiene.
Article in British dental journal, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Powered vs. manual toothbrushes in fixed orthodontic patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European journal of orthodontics · 2026Pooled it
- Effect of Adjunctive Use of Commercial Daily Mouthwashes on Periodontal Health: An Umbrella Review.Journal of clinical periodontology · 2026Pooled it
- Randomised-crossover clinical trial on the substantivity of a single application of a gel containing chlorhexidine and o-cymen-5-ol on the oral biofilm and saliva.BMC oral health · 2024Trial
- Validity of the Oral Hygiene Ability Instrument (OHAI).Gerodontology · 2025Article
- Increase in the level of oral neutrophils with gingival inflammation - A population survey.The Saudi dental journal · 2022Article
- Beyond oral hygiene, are capacity-altering, biologically based interventions within the moral domain of dentistry?British dental journal · 2021Article
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction Dental plaque is a major aetiological factor in the development of periodontal disease; thus, it is essential to remove dental plaque to maintain good oral health. We used a simple method to visually evaluate a patient's dexterity to assess their oral care efficiency. The aim of this study was to evaluate dexterity and the effect it has on plaque control. Materials and methods A total of 80 patients, aged between 18 and 60 years, participated in this study. Participants were asked to pick up peas using chopsticks, and transfer them from one box (box A) to an empty box (box B), within one minute. The numbers of peas in box B were then counted. The plaque index score was recorded before and after standardised oral hygiene instructions (OHI) were given to each participant. Age, sex, dominant hand, and the result of the dexterity test were compared. Results Dexterity was the only significant predictor of improvement in oral hygiene after the OHI. All other variables were included in the model but none were reliable predictors. Conclusion Dexterity might be a good predictor of improvement in oral hygiene. We conclude that dexterity should be assessed in order to provide tailored instructions to each individual.
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.