ArticleScientific reports2021
Comparative in vitro study of the cleaning efficacy of AirFloss ultra and I-Prox Sulcus brushes in an orthodontic phantom model.
Article in Scientific reports, 2021. 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.
- Molecular distinctions of bronchoalveolar and alveolar organoids under differentiation conditions.Physiological reports · 2024Article
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
Preventing biofilm-related risks such as gingivitis and white spot lesions during orthodontic treatments is very challenging. The cleaning efficiencies of AirFloss Ultra and I-Prox P sulcus brushes were evaluated using an orthodontic phantom model. After attaching brackets onto black-coated maxillary KaVo teeth, a plaque substitute was applied. The evaluated tooth surfaces were divided into two areas. Cleaning was performed with an AirFloss Ultra with two (A-2) or four (A-4) sprays or an I-Prox P for two (I-2) or four (I-4) seconds. Images before and after cleaning were digitally subtracted, and the percentage of fully cleaned surfaces was determined (Adobe Photoshop CS5, ImageJ). Statistical analysis was performed by ANOVA and post hoc tests with Bonferroni correction (SPSS 25, p < 0.05). The mean values of total cleaning efficacy were 26.87% for I-2, 43.73% for I-4, 34.93%, for A-2 and 56.78% for A-4. The efficacy was significantly higher for A-4 than for A-2, I-4, and I-2. There were significant differences between the four groups. Repeated cleaning led to an improved result. Within the study limitations, the AirFloss Ultra with four sprays proved to be more efficient than the sulcus brush I-Prox P for cleaning.
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.