Trial reportJournal of clinical periodontology2020
Cleansing efficacy of waist-shaped inter-dental brushes. A randomized-controlled crossover study.
Trial report in Journal of clinical periodontology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Plaque cleaning efficacy of waist-shaped interdental brushes among individuals with open interproximal spaces: a systematic review.Evidence-based dentistry · 2024Pooled it
- The efficacy of subgingival air polishing and subgingival debridement in periodontal support therapy: a meta-analysis.Evidence-based dentistry · 2023Pooled it
- Effect of interdental brush design on plaque during nonsurgical periodontal therapy.Clinical oral investigations · 2021Trial
- Cleansing efficacy of waist-shaped inter-dental brushes. A randomized-controlled crossover study.Journal of clinical periodontology · 2020Trial
- The Journey of Oral Hygiene: The Past, the Present, the Future.Journal of periodontal research · 2026Article
- History of Interdental Brushes: Origins, Developments, Perspectives.Oral health & preventive dentistry · 2025Article
- New Options for Subgingival Oral Hygiene with a Flattened Interdental Brush Design - In Vitro Examination and Case Report.Oral health & preventive dentistry · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the cleansing efficacy of waist-shaped versus cylindric inter-dental brushes in patients receiving supportive periodontal therapy. MATERIALS AND
methodsAfter sample size estimation, 20 periodontal maintenance patients diagnosed with periodontitis stage 3 were recruited. Brushing efficacy of waist-shaped and cylindric inter-dental brushes was evaluated in a randomized-controlled, examiner-blinded, two-period crossover study by assessment of the Turesky modification of Quigley-Hein plaque index (T-QHI) and the papillary bleeding index (PBI) at four sites per tooth.
resultsSeventeen probands with 1,474 tooth sites finished the study. At baseline, median of overall T-QHI scores was 1.4 (interquartile range 1.38-1.92). After 1 month, T-QHI for waist-shaped inter-dental brushes was 1.24 (1.03-1.52); in 15 individuals, T-QHI 0 was the grade most often measured. T-QHI for cylindric brushes was 1.71 (1.18-2.29; p = .042), with T-QHI 0 being the grade most often measured only in seven individuals. The odds ratio for establishing plaque-free inter-dental sites with waist-shaped relative to cylindric brushes was 1.8 [95% CI 1.6-1.9] (p < .001; logistic regression analysis). There were no statistically significant differences between PBI levels of waist-shaped and cylindric brushes.
conclusionThis study has demonstrated the superiority in cleansing efficacy of waist-shaped over cylindric inter-dental brushes in individuals receiving supportive periodontal treatment.
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.