Trial reportClinical and experimental dental research2022
Plaque removal by a novel prototype power toothbrush versus a manual toothbrush: A randomized, exploratory clinical study.
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 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Evaluation of plaque removal by triple-headed manual toothbrush: a randomized controlled clinical trial.BMC oral health · 2026Trial
- The efficacy of the dental Water Jet, orthodontic, and conventional toothbrushes in plaque removal around orthodontic braces in adolescents: A randomized controlled trial.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2023Trial
- Plaque removal by a novel prototype power toothbrush versus a manual toothbrush: A randomized, exploratory clinical study.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2022Trial
- Comparison Between Powered and Manual Toothbrushes Effectiveness for Maintaining an Optimal Oral Health Status.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry · 2024Review
- In Vitro Efficacy of Domestic Techniques for Disinfection of Toothbrushes Contaminated WithInternational journal of dentistry · 2024Article
- Innovations in oral hygiene tools: a mini review on recent developments.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2024Review
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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThis exploratory study investigated plaque removal with a prototype constant, low rotation speed Power Toothbrush (PTB) with two brushing actions: "Gumline" (head rotates in the horizontal axis) and "Interdental" (head rotates in the vertical axis). Gumline alone and "Combined" (Gumline + Interdental) modes were compared with a Reference PTB and a Reference Manual Toothbrush (MTB) after one brushing. MATERIALS AND
methodsThirty-nine participants were randomized to use each toothbrush once either in the sequence (A) Prototype PTB (in Gumline then Combined mode), (B) reference MTB, and (C) reference PTB or the sequence BAC. There was a minimum 3-day washout between the use of each toothbrush. Plaque removal was measured using the Rustogi Modified Navy Dental Plaque Index (RMNPI) with change from baseline investigated using an analysis of covariance model. RMNPI scores were calculated on a "whole mouth" basis and along the gingival margin and at proximal sites only.
resultsFor the primary efficacy variable, a significant difference was found in favor of the prototype PTB in gumline mode versus the reference MTB for whole mouth plaque score (difference: -0.06; standard error: 0.014; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.09 to -0.04; p < .0001). Similar significant differences were found in gingival margin and proximal areas (p < .0001). The prototype PTB in gumline mode removed significantly less plaque than the prototype PTB in combined mode and the reference PTB (p < .0001; whole mouth/gingival/proximal areas). The prototype PTB in combined mode removed significantly more plaque than the reference MTB (p < .0001; whole mouth/gingival/proximal areas) and the reference PTB for whole mouth (p = .0214) and gingival margin areas (p = .0010). The reference PTB also removed significantly more plaque than the reference MTB (p < .0001; whole mouth/gingival/proximal areas). All brushes were generally well-tolerated.
conclusionThe prototype PTB design, providing two distinct cleaning modalities, can effectively remove plaque to a significantly higher degree than an MTB and a marketed PTB, depending on mode.
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.