Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34275193›Full record

Trial reportInternational journal of dental hygiene2022

Clinical evaluation of air polishing with erythritol powder followed by ultrasonic calculus removal versus conventional ultrasonic debridement and rubber cup polishing for the treatment of gingivitis: A split-mouth randomized controlled clinical trial.

Magda Mensi, Eleonora Scotti, Annamaria Sordillo, Matteo Dalè, Stefano Calza

Open access · bronzeAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report 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 13 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
1.3field-weighted citation impact, top 21% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Magda MensiSection of Periodontics, School of Dentistry, Department of Surgical Specialties, Radiological Science and Public Health, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5807-9338
Eleonora ScottiSection of Periodontics, School of Dentistry, Department of Surgical Specialties, Radiological Science and Public Health, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.
Annamaria SordilloSection of Periodontics, School of Dentistry, Department of Surgical Specialties, Radiological Science and Public Health, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.
Matteo DalèSection of Periodontics, School of Dentistry, Department of Surgical Specialties, Radiological Science and Public Health, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.
Stefano CalzaDepartment of Molecular and Translational Medicine, University of Brescia, Brescia, Italy.
Surgical Specialties (Canada) · CAUniversity of Brescia · IT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo evaluate the clinical efficacy in the short-term resolution of gingivitis of a novel protocol involving full-mouth erythritol powder air polishing followed by ultrasonic calculus removal.

methodsForty-one healthy patients completed the study. Following a split-mouth design, quadrants 1-4 and 2-3 were randomly allocated to receive air polishing followed by ultrasonic calculus removal (A+US) or traditional full-mouth ultrasonic debridement followed by polishing with a rubber cup and prophylactic paste (US+P). Bleeding on probing (BoP) and plaque index (PI) were collected at baseline and 2 and 4 weeks. Moreover, the residual plaque area (RPA), treatment time and patient comfort/satisfaction were evaluated at the end of the treatment.

resultsBoth treatments showed a significant reduction in BoP and PI. At 4 weeks, A+US seems to reach a statistically significant lower BoP (8.7% [6.9; 10.9] vs. 11.6%[9.3; 14.4], p < 0.0001) and PI (10.7% [8.9; 13.0] vs. 12.3% [10.2; 14.9], p = 0.033). Moreover, A+US treatment time lasted on average 9.2% less than US+P (p < 0.0001) and was the preferred treatment for a significantly higher number of patients (73.2% vs. 17.1%, p = 0.0001).

conclusionThe A+US protocol is suitable for the short-term resolution of plaque-induced gingivitis.

Indexed as

CalculiDental PlaqueGingivitisDebridementDental PolishingErythritolHumansPowdersRubberUltrasonicsErythritolPowdersRubberair polishingdental biofilmgingivitisoral hygieneplaque disclosing

Identifiers

PMID34275193
PMCPMC9292536
OpenAlexW3185168991

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.