ArticleContemporary clinical dentistry
Comparative Evaluation of Efficacy of 4% Tulsi Extract (
Article in Contemporary clinical dentistry. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment of the Efficacy ofInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistry · 2025Article
- Medicinal Plants Against Dental Caries: Research and Application of Their Antibacterial Properties.Plants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- A Three-Month Probiotic (theDentistry journal · 2024Article
- A systematic review of medicinal plants and herbal products' effectiveness in oral health and dental cure with health promotion approach.Journal of education and health promotion · 2023Review
- Beneficial Role of Antioxidant Secondary Metabolites from Medicinal Plants in Maintaining Oral Health.Antioxidants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Harnessing the Potential of Roots of Traditional Power Plant:Frontiers in plant science · 2021Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextGingivitis is the most prevalent periodontal disease among adolescents. The most important factor associated with gingivitis is plaque accumulation. Mechanical plaque control through tooth brushing and mouth rinsing are the most commonly used preventive methods.
aimsThis study aims to assess and compare the antiplaque and antigingivitis effect of 4% Tulsi leaf extract dentifrice, fluoridated and placebo dentifrice (PD) among 14-15-year-old school children in Davangere city. MATERIALS AND
methodsA triple blinded concurrent parallel trial. A sample of 84 participants with a baseline mean gingival index score of at least 1.0 and mean plaque index score of at least 1.5 were randomly selected. Participants were divided into three groups by block randomization and concealed random allocation method was used to distribute dentifrices. Postassessment of plaque and gingivitis was done on the 21 STATISTICAL ANALYSIS USED: Wilcoxon signed rank test for within group comparison and Kruskal-Wallis ANOVA for intergroup comparison was used.
resultsSignificant reduction in the plaque and gingival scores between the groups was observed on the 21
conclusionAntiplaque and antigingivitis efficacy of 4% tulsi and commercially available fluoridated dentifrice remained the same after 21 days.
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.