ArticleData in brief2020
Data on toothbrushing study comparing infrared-based motion tracking versus video observation.
Article in Data in brief, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Investigations of toothbrushing habits are an important vector to understand their influence on brushing effectiveness. User compliance in toothbrushing is known to deviate from professional recommendations in brushing time, evenness across all areas of the dentition, and brushing force [1,2]. Despite the recent development of tools designed to guide users to optimised brushing habits [3,4], research on habit evaluation and tracking is limited and typically relies on labour-intensive video observation (VO) [5]. Here we present raw data on toothbrush position as determined by an automated motion tracking (MT) capability and by human VO and provide a technical description of the MT capability. The MT system described in this article was developed in collaboration with Soft2Tec GmbH (Rüsselsheim, Germany) as a potential substitute for the VO tool. The MT system consists of a monocular vision module and a target module with active infrared LED trackers. The MT system determined the position and orientation of a toothbrush relative to the jaw while subjects brushed under realistic conditions. For VO, a trained assessor coded video recording data from toothbrushing sessions. The data presented here describes a clinical study (103 subjects; 46 completed two sessions, 57 completed one session, altogether 149 events) comparing toothbrushing behaviour recorded with the MT system and with VO simultaneously. The raw data was deposited in Mendeley Data, under data identification number doi:10.17632/4f384xrbhm.1 [https://data.mendeley.com/datasets/4f384xrbhm/1].
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.