Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33630360›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of dental hygiene2022

The efficacy of a rubber bristles interdental cleaner on parameters of oral soft tissue health-a systematic review.

Fridus van der Weijden, Dagmar Else Slot, Eveline van der Sluijs, Nienke Lisette Hennequin-Hoenderdos

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of dental hygiene, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 17% 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.

Fridus van der WeijdenDepartment of Periodontology, Academic Center for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5075-8384
Dagmar Else SlotDepartment of Periodontology, Academic Center for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7234-0037
Eveline van der SluijsDepartment of Periodontology, Academic Center for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1269-1710
Nienke Lisette Hennequin-HoenderdosDepartment of Periodontology, Academic Center for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6740-5657
Academic Center for Dentistry Amsterdam · NL

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimThis study aimed to establish the efficacy of a rubber bristles interdental cleaner (RBIC) as an adjunct to toothbrushing (TB) compared to that of the adjuvant use of other interdental cleaning devices and TB alone on plaque and gingivitis parameters. Additionally, the safety aspects and panellists' appreciation were evaluated. MATERIALS AND

methodsDatabases were searched for randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating plaque (PI), bleeding (BS), and gingival index (GI) scores, safety assessments, and participants' appreciation. Extracted data were summarized in a descriptive and, if possible, a meta-analysis.

resultsThe search retrieved 142 unique papers; six studies with 10 comparisons were included in a descriptive analysis. Five RCTs compared RBICs with interdental brushes (IDBs), four with dental floss (DF) and one with manual TB only. No comparisons to wood sticks were retrieved. Using an RBIC resulted in no difference in plaque scores compared to DF and IDBs. For overall bleeding scores, no difference was found. Two studies analysing the accessible sites separately found RBICs to be more favourable than DF and IDBs. Conversely, one study evaluating the efficacy of RBICs compared to IDBs, according to the GI scores, showed that IDBs achieved significantly greater reduction. Moreover, RBICs caused fewer gingival abrasions and were preferred by the study participants.

conclusionBased on a descriptive and a meta-analysis of the available literature, it is synthesized that in gingivitis patients, a weak to very weak certainty exists that a RBIC is indicated for gingivitis and plaque reduction. The evidence supports user safety and participants' preferences.

Indexed as

Dental PlaqueGingivitisDental Devices, Home CareDental Plaque IndexHumansRubberToothbrushingRubberdental plaquegingival healthrubber bristles interdental cleanersystematic review

Identifiers

PMID33630360
PMCPMC9292806
OpenAlexW3132647404

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.