Trial reportClinical and experimental dental research2022
A psychological intervention for caries active young adults, a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Clinical and experimental dental research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- A psychological intervention for caries active young adults, a randomized controlled trial.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2022Trial
- Effects of psychological intervention combined with education on psychological resilience and healthy behavior of patients with pulp disease.World journal of psychiatry · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of the present study was to evaluate the effect of a brief version of the behavioral intervention Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) on reducing gingivitis and plaque levels after 18 weeks. MATERIALS AND
methodsOne hundred thirty-five caries-active young adults (18-25 years of age), recruited from two public dental clinics, participated in this parallel group randomized control trial (RCT). Participants in the intervention (n = 67) received two ACT sessions in combination with standard information on oral health, and participants allocated to the control group (n = 68) received standard information only. Gingivitis and plaque levels were recorded at baseline and at the 9- and 18-week follow-ups. The effect of the intervention versus standard information alone was analyzed by intention-to-treat and per protocol, applying the General Linear Model (GLM). Exploratory analyses for the intervention and control groups were conducted to evaluate the effect of gender and smoking habits on the gingivitis and plaque outcome. The CONSORT guidelines for RCT were followed.
resultsA significant decrease in gingivitis and plaque levels was observed over time, irrespective of treatment allocation. However, the ACT intervention was not significantly more effective at reducing gingivitis and plaque scores than standard information alone, even though the intervention participants had maintained their improvement to a greater extent. The exploratory analysis revealed that females improved their gingivitis and plaque levels significantly more than the males in the intervention group (p = 0.025 for gingivitis and p = 0.013 for plaque).
conclusionA brief ACT intervention was not proven to be more effective than standard information alone at improving oral health in a sample of young adults with poor oral health. However, ACT seems to have a positive effect on oral health among females. (TRN ISRCTN15009620).
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.