Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35535635›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of dental hygiene2023

The efficacy of an oscillating-rotating power toothbrush compared to a high-frequency sonic power toothbrush on parameters of dental plaque and gingival inflammation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Eveline van der Sluijs, Dagmar Else Slot, Nienke Lisette Hennequin-Hoenderdos, Cees Valkenburg, Fridus G A van der Weijden

Open access · hybridAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of dental hygiene, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 13 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Exploring Toothbrushing Duration Among Adults: A Systematic Review.International journal of dental hygiene · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.

Eveline van der SluijsDepartment of Periodontology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), a joint venture between the Faculty of Dentistry of the University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1269-1710
Dagmar Else SlotDepartment of Periodontology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), a joint venture between the Faculty of Dentistry of the University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7234-0037
Nienke Lisette Hennequin-HoenderdosDepartment of Periodontology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), a joint venture between the Faculty of Dentistry of the University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6740-5657
Cees ValkenburgDepartment of Periodontology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), a joint venture between the Faculty of Dentistry of the University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6656-6934
Fridus G A van der WeijdenDepartment of Periodontology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), a joint venture between the Faculty of Dentistry of the University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5075-8384
Academic Center for Dentistry Amsterdam · NL

Funding

Procter a Gamble Worldwide Clinical Investigations-Oral Care
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

aimTo establish the efficacy of oscillating-rotating power toothbrush (OR-PTB) compared to high-frequency sonic power toothbrush (HFS-PTB) on improving parameters of plaque and gingival inflammation. Safety and participants' preference were secondary interests. MATERIALS AND

methodsMEDLINE-PubMed and Cochrane-CENTRAL databases were searched, up to April 2021. Inclusion criteria were (randomized)controlled clinical trials that evaluated healthy humans brushing with an OR-PTB compared to a HFS-PTB. Evaluation for a minimum of 4 weeks, of one or more of the following parameters: plaque index scores (PI), bleeding scores (BS), number of bleeding sites (NoB) and gingival index scores (GI).

resultsThirty two publications involving 38 comparisons were included after the independent screening. The descriptive analysis showed that in 54% of the comparisons, a significant difference in favour of the OR-PTB was found for PI, BS and GI scores. The Quigley and Hein index showed a significant difference of means (DiffM) between the end scores (DiffM 0.13, 95% CI [0.05;0.21] p < 0.001), as well as for the Rustogi-modified Navy index (DiffM 0.01, 95% CI [0.01;0.03] p = 0.002). This is in line with the meta-analysis for BS (DiffM 0.09, 95% CI [0.03;0.14] p = 0.003), for which the results were in favour of the OR-PTB and considered potentially clinically relevant. NoB showed a significant difference in favour of the OR-PTB for the end scores (DiffM 3.61, 95% CI [2.63;4.58] p < 0.00001). No difference in safety was indicated, 78% of participants preferred the OR-PTB.

conclusionFor patients to maintain good plaque control and improve gingival health, there is a small but significant difference based on longer-term studies between OR-PTB and HFS-PTB. This difference is potentially clinically relevant.

Indexed as

Dental PlaqueGingivitisDental Plaque IndexEquipment DesignHumansInflammationSingle-Blind MethodToothbrushingdental plaquegingival healthoscillating-rotating toothbrushpower toothbrushsonic toothbrushsystematic review

Identifiers

PMID35535635
PMCPMC10084121
OpenAlexW4280510899

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.