ArticleBMC oral health2019
Efficiency of chewable toothbrush in reduction of dental plaque in students.
Article in BMC oral health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of plaque removal by triple-headed manual toothbrush: a randomized controlled clinical trial.BMC oral health · 2026Trial
- Assessment of Knowledge, Attitude, and Practice of Iranian Nurses towards Toothbrush Maintenance and Use.Nursing research and practice · 2021Article
- 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
9 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBesides classical and electrical toothbrushes market offers tooth brushes that can be chewed, like chewing gums. The aim of this study was to show the effectiveness of chewable toothbrush versus a conventional brush in the students' population.
methodsThe prospective study included 346 students. For this research, we used a e-questionnaire for "smart" phones, that students completed outside the dental office. Respondents are divided into two groups: control group used conventional toothbrushes, respondents from the tested group used chewable toothbrush. For assessment of accumulation of the plaque we used TQHI index. For testing statistical hypotheses, the following were used: t-test for two independent samples and analysis of the variance of repeated measurements.
resultsBefore brushing teeth, the average TQHI value for chewable brushes is 2.8 ± 0.3, while conventional is 2.7 ± 0.3, which is not a statistically significant difference (p = 0.448). After brushing teeth, the average TQHI value for chewable brushes is 2.0 ± 0.1, while conventional 2.0 ± 0.3, which is also not statistically significant (p = 0.729). Observing the index of the plaque values on the tooth surfaces in the upper jaw, in both groups, there was a statistically significant change in the amount of plaque in time (p < 0.001). There is a statistically significant interaction between groups and changes in the amount of plaque in the observed period (p = 0.013).
conclusionsThe fact that there is no significant difference in the effectiveness of the tested brushes indicates the benefits of using chewable toothbrushes in order to reduce plaque, primarily in the inability to use conventional brushes.
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.