Trial reportClinical oral investigations2020
Comparison of clinical efficacy and patient acceptance of interdental brush and silicone coated interdental pick: a randomized split-mouth, prospective clinical trial.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- The efficacy of a rubber bristles interdental cleaner on parameters of oral soft tissue health-a systematic review.International journal of dental hygiene · 2022Pooled it
- Sustainability of regular use of interdental cleaning tools in periodontally healthy individuals.Journal of periodontology · 2025Trial
- Silicone toothbrushes: A scoping review of an underutilized tool in global oral health.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
- New design of interdental rubber picks - does the archimedean screw design bring an improvement for experimental cleaning efficacy and force?BMC oral health · 2024Article
- The influence of artificial saliva on the cleaning force of interdental rubber picks: an in-vitro comparison.BMC oral health · 2022Article
- Interdental biofilm reduction and composition after use of an activated and inactivated side-to-side toothbrush - a proof-of-principle clinical study.Clinical oral investigations · 2022Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this split-mouth, prospective controlled study was to compare the effects of two different interdental devices on clinical plaque elimination, gingival bleeding and patient acceptance and comfort. MATERIALS AND
methodsThirty participants who had been diagnosed with gingivitis were included in the study. After professional oral prophylaxis and a 3-day washout period, patients were advised to use two test devices (TePe Interdental Brushes Original and TePe EasyPick™, Malmö, Sweden) according to instructions. The plaque index (Turesky modification of the Quigley and Hein Index) and bleeding index (Papillary Bleeding Index) were recorded at baseline and after 2 weeks. Patient satisfaction and comfort were assessed with a questionnaire.
resultsBoth of the tested devices improved the plaque and bleeding index scores. There were no differences between the two sides in terms of time-dependent changes. The patients felt more satisfied with the cleansing capacity and more comfortable with the use of SCIP compared with IDB (p = 0.001). Pain sensation with the use of SCIP was significantly lower than with IDB (p = 0.002).
conclusionThe clinical efficiency of the tested interdental devices was similar in terms of removing plaque and decreasing bleeding. However, SCIP were found to be more comfortable and preferable to IDB. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The silicone coated interdental picks showed similar effects on plaque removal as interdental brushes and superiority in terms of ease to use than interdental brushes.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32430775What 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.