Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32243576›Full record

Trial reportInternational dental journal2020

Evaluation of an oscillating-rotating toothbrush with micro-vibrations versus a sonic toothbrush for the reduction of plaque and gingivitis: results from a randomized controlled trial.

Ralf Adam, C Ram Goyal, Jimmy Qaqish, Julie Grender

Registry-linked trialOpen access · greenAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in International dental journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05723133 (A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Manual Versus Powered Toothbrushes With Visual Feedback), which is not on this map. Cited by 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

NCT05723133 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2022, after this paper: background citation

A Randomized Controlled Trial Comparing Manual Versus Powered Toothbrushes With Visual Feedback

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity GhentRan2022 to 2024Enrolled150ConditionsToothbrushing, Oral Hygiene, Dental PlaqueArmsElectric toothbrush, Oral hygiene instructions
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 24 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Cleansing efficacy of the electric toothbrush Oral-BClinical oral investigations · 2024
    Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. A Three-Month Probiotic (theDentistry journal · 2024
    Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Ralf AdamProcter & Gamble Service GmbH, Kronberg, Germany.
C Ram GoyalAll Sum Research Center Ltd, Mississauga, ON, Canada.
Jimmy QaqishAll Sum Research Center Ltd, Mississauga, ON, Canada.
Julie GrenderThe Procter & Gamble Company, Mason, OH, USA.
All Sum Research Center (Canada) · CAProcter & Gamble (United States) · US

Funding

Procter & Gamble, Cincinnati
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeTo compare a novel oscillating-rotating (O-R) electric rechargeable toothbrush with micro-vibrations to a marketed premium sonic toothbrush for reduction of gingivitis and plaque in an 8-week randomized controlled trial.

methodsAdult subjects with evidence of gingivitis and plaque were randomized to use either the novel O-R brush (Oral-B iO) or the sonic brush with sodium fluoride dentifrice twice daily. Assessments at baseline and week 8 included the Rustogi Modification of the Navy Plaque Index (RMNPI), Modified Gingival Index (MGI), and Gingival Bleeding Index (GBI). Gingivitis status ('healthy'/'not healthy') was classified per the American Academy of Periodontology/European Federation of Periodontology criteria.

resultsNinety subjects were randomized to treatment and completed the study. Subjects had a mean age of 49.2 years; 68 were females. At baseline, the mean number (standard deviation [SD]) of bleeding sites for all subjects was 32.8 (16.43). At week 8, the O-R brush group had a higher percentage of 'healthy' gingiva subjects than the sonic brush group (84% vs. 53% P = 0.003). In the between-group comparisons at week 8, the O-R brush group showed statistically significantly greater reductions (P < 0.001) compared to the sonic group for MGI, GBI, and number of bleeding sites. The O-R brush group also had statistically significantly greater plaque removal (P ≤ 0.011) than the sonic brush group for whole mouth plaque as well as plaque in the proximal regions and along the gingival margin.

conclusionsThe novel O-R electric toothbrush with micro-vibrations provided greater plaque and gingivitis reductions than the marketed premium sonic toothbrush over 8 weeks.

Indexed as

Dental PlaqueGingivitisAdultDental Plaque IndexEquipment DesignFemaleHumansMiddle AgedSingle-Blind MethodToothbrushingVibrationDental plaquegingivitismicro-vibrationsoscillating-rotatingsonictoothbrush

Identifiers

PMID32243576
PMCPMC9379213
OpenAlexW3014385943

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.