ReviewInternational journal of dentistry2022
Powered Toothbrushes: An Opportunity for Biofilm and Gingival Inflammation Control.
Review in International journal of dentistry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- 0.1% octenidine versus 0.2% chlorhexidine mouthwashes for plaque-induced gingivitis: A triple-blinded randomized controlled trial.Bioinformation · 2026Article
- Evaluation of the effectiveness of novel oral hygiene aids in the prevention of gingival diseases in children and adolescents with special healthcare needs - A systematic review and meta-analysis.Dental research journal · 2025Review
- Oral Prevalence ofPathogens (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Comparison Between Powered and Manual Toothbrushes Effectiveness for Maintaining an Optimal Oral Health Status.Clinical, cosmetic and investigational dentistry · 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
7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The present review aimed at a broad investigation on the potential of powered as compared to manual toothbrushes in different aspects of clinical dentistry. Studies evaluating plaque and gingival inflammatory parameters were included, as well as those that investigated adverse effects. Emphasis was given separately to adults, youngsters, special-needs patients, and those under fixed orthodontic therapy. In general, comparisons favored powered toothbrushes. In summary, approximately 68% of the included studies, in terms of plaque/gingival inflammation in adults, presented better results for powered toothbrushes. In children and special-needs populations, approximately 40% of the included studies favored powered toothbrushes for plaque/gingival inflammation, and none favored manual ones. In orthodontic individuals, 50% of the studies also demonstrated a better effect of powered toothbrushes on plaque and gingival inflammation. All included studies that assessed adverse events did not demonstrate a difference in these effects when comparing manual vs. powered toothbrushes. It is concluded that the use of powered toothbrushes is an opportunity to enhance patterns of plaque control and associated gingival inflammation.
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.