Trial reportOral health & preventive dentistry2022
Dental Plaque Removal with Two Special Needs Toothbrushes in Patients with Down Syndrome: A Parallel-Group Randomised Clinical Trial of Efficacy.
Trial report in Oral health & preventive dentistry, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy of periodontal treatment modalities in Down syndrome patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Evidence-based dentistry · 2024Pooled it
- Optimizing oral hygiene for children and adolescents with Down syndrome: a scoping review.Canadian journal of dental hygiene : CJDH = Journal canadien de l'hygiene dentaire : JCHD · 2025Article
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo compare the effectiveness of two varieties of special needs toothbrushes in terms of dental plaque removal and bacterial contamination vs a conventional toothbrush in patients with Down syndrome. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis single-blinded, two-group, randomised clinical trial included 16 patients diagnosed with Down syndrome (age 6-15 years) from various special needs centers located in the Jazan Province of Saudi Arabia. The patients were randomly allocated to two groups based on the type of special needs toothbrush provided (Collis Curve or superfine nano). The plaque and bleeding indices of the patients in both groups were measured at baseline (T0) and both groups were initially given a conventional toothbrush to use for four weeks. After this period, the plaque and bleeding indices were re-evaluated (T1). The patients were instructed to use the special needs toothbrush for 4 weeks, after which the periodontal indices were re-evaluated (T2). Microbial contamination on the bristles of the special needs brushes was evaluated at T2.
resultsNo notable changes in the mean plaque and bleeding indices were observed between the two groups at each visit; however, statistically significant reductions were noted between visits in both groups (p < 0.05). The CFU scores in cultures from the Collis Curve toothbrush bristles (1411.5 ± 541.1) were higher than those obtained from the superfine nano-toothbrush bristles (1118.3 ± 423.9), but without statistically significant differences.
conclusionThe findings indicate that the use of special needs toothbrushes can statistically significantly improve the gingival health status in individuals with Down syndrome in terms of both resolution of periodontal inflammation and reduction of plaque accumulation.
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.