Trial reportInternational dental journal2023
Clinical Evaluation of Toothbrushes for Elderly Patients: A Crossover Study.
Trial report in International dental journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of Bioactive Glass-Based Toothpaste for Early Childhood Caries Prevention: A Randomized Controlled Trial.International dental journal · 2026Trial
- Comparative Effect of Non-surgical Versus Surgical Therapy for Stage III/IV Periodontitis: A Retrospective Cohort Study.International dental journal · 2026Article
- 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of 2 newly designed toothbrushes used by elderly individuals based on plaque removal and gingival inflammation reduction compared with 2 commercially available toothbrushes. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis was a randomised, controlled, single-blind, 4-period crossover clinical trial. Thirty elderly participants meeting the inclusion criteria were randomly allocated into 4 groups, which determined the sequence of the 4 toothbrushes: CUdent/extra soft, CUdent/soft, GoodAge, and Colgate. The participants' baseline bleeding on probing (BOP) and plaque index (PI) were assessed by one blinded calibrated examiner, then their teeth were professionally cleaned. The participants were assigned to use the tested toothbrush and were recalled for postbrushing examination 2 weeks later to evaluate their BOP and PI. At the end of each test period, the participants used their own toothbrush during the 2-week washout period before using the next tested toothbrush.
resultsThe mean age of the 30 participants was 63.2 years. The mean baseline BOP score was 44.4%, and mean baseline PI was 2.7. Three participants dropped out; thus, 27 participants (15 females and 12 males) provided data throughout the study period. The participant characteristics and baseline data between the groups were similar. CUdent/extra soft and CUdent/soft demonstrated significantly better PI scores at the buccal surfaces than GoodAge (P < .05). CUdent/soft had the lowest PI scores and Colgate presented the lowest BOP score in every comparison for other areas; however, the differences were not significant. No signs of tissue trauma or abrasion were observed.
conclusionsThe newly designed toothbrushes were comparable to the commercially available toothbrushes in plaque removal efficacy and reducing gingival inflammation. CUdent/extra soft and soft were significantly more effective in plaque removal in the buccal regions than GoodAge.
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.