ArticleCureus2021
Evaluation and Acceptance of an Electric Toothbrush Designed for Dependent Patients.
Article in Cureus, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06541743 (Efficacy of Regular, Musical and Electric Toothbrushes in Plaque Removal in Children - A Randomized Clinical Trial), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 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.
Efficacy of Regular, Musical and Electric Toothbrushes in Plaque Removal in Children - A Randomized Clinical Trial
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of plaque removal by a single-headed versus a triple-headed manual toothbrush using different plaque assessment tools.Canadian journal of dental hygiene : CJDH = Journal canadien de l'hygiene dentaire : JCHD · 2024Trial
- Pilot study of the effectiveness and acceptability of an automatic toothbrush among residents in long-term care.Special care in dentistry : official publication of the American Association of Hospital Dentists, the Academy of Dentistry for the Handicapped, and the American Society for Geriatric Dentistry · 2024Article
- Oral Health in Alzheimer's Disease: A Life-Course Perspective on Clinical Management and Caregiver Support.Special care in dentistry : official publication of the American Association of Hospital Dentists, the Academy of Dentistry for the Handicapped, and the American Society for Geriatric DentistryReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionA key barrier to standardizing evidence-based oral health protocols for highly dependent patients is the lack of validated and accepted oral health products designed specifically for use by caregivers. This study compared preferences by users of a novel electric toothbrush and a manual toothbrush in a health care setting.
methodsWe prospectively enrolled health care providers as volunteers. Volunteer brushers completed simulated tooth brushing sessions of mock-intubated and non-intubated volunteer brushees with both toothbrushes. Volunteers rated different domains of toothbrush preference in an anonymous, optional survey.
resultsA total of 133 health care providers volunteered (123 brushers [providers brushing teeth] and 10 brushees [those having their teeth brushed]). The novel electric toothbrush received significantly higher positive ratings than the standard hospital-issue manual toothbrush in all domains that we surveyed: ease of use, thoroughness, safety, shape and size of the brush head, overall cleanliness, time requirements, and efficiency (p<0.001). Importantly, due to the integrated light and suction of this electric toothbrush, brushers completed more sessions without setting down the toothbrush with the electric toothbrush than with the manual toothbrush (75.4% vs 36.4%; p<0.001).
conclusionsIntegrating a lighted electric brush with suction into the caregiver's armamentarium as an evidence-based tool is warranted and should be evaluated in terms of patient outcomes.
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.