Trial reportClinical oral investigations2023
Cleansing efficacy of an oral irrigator with microburst technology in orthodontic patients-a randomized-controlled crossover study.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- The effectiveness of oral irrigators on periodontal health status and oral hygiene of orthodontic patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC oral health · 2024Pooled it
- Cleansing efficacy of an oral irrigator with microburst technology in adolescent orthodontic patients. A randomized-controlled crossover study.Clinical oral investigations · 2024Trial
- Trial
- A Three-Month Probiotic (theDentistry journal · 2024Article
- Oral Irrigation Devices: A Scoping Review.Clinical and experimental dental research · 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
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesOrthodontic patients struggle with interdental cleaning calling for simpler mechanical devices to reduce the high plaque levels. The present study aimed to compare the cleansing efficacy of an oral irrigator with that of dental flossing in patients with fixed braces after 4 weeks of home-use. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe study design is a randomized and single-blinded cross-over study. After 28 days using the products at home, hygiene indices (Rustogi Modified Navy Plaque Index (RMNPI); gingival bleeding index (GBI)) were compared between test (oral irrigator) and control product (dental floss).
resultsSeventeen adult individuals finalized the study. After 28 days of cleaning with the oral irrigator, RMNPI was 54.96% (46.91-66.05) compared to 52.98% (42.75-65.60) with dental floss (p = 0.029). Subgroup analysis revealed that the higher cleansing efficacy of the dental floss is attributable to buccal and marginal areas. GBI after the test phase with the oral irrigator was 12.96% (7.14-24.31) and statistically significantly higher compared to 8.33% (5.84-15.33) with dental floss (p = 0.030) which could be seen in all subgroups.
conclusionsOral irrigators do not remove plaque and reduce gingival bleeding as efficiently as dental floss in easily accessible regions. However, in posterior regions, where the patients struggled with the application of dental floss, the oral irrigator showed similar results. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Oral irrigators should only be recommended to orthodontic patients who cannot use interdental brushes and are not compliant with dental flossing.
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.