Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37266910›Full record

Trial reportJournal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie2024

Manual vs. interactive power toothbrush on plaque removal and salivary Streptococcus mutans and Lactobacillus casei levels : Single-center, examiner-blinded, randomized clinical trial in orthodontic patients.

Tuğba Erden, Hasan Camcı

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialComparative Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Journal of orofacial orthopedics = Fortschritte der Kieferorthopadie : Organ/official journal Deutsche Gesellschaft fur Kieferorthopadie, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
0.4field-weighted citation impact, top 39% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. 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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Tuğba ErdenDepartment of Orthodontics, Afyonkarahisar Health Science University, Afyonkarahisar, Turkey.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4567-5867
Hasan CamcıDepartment of Orthodontics, Afyonkarahisar Health Science University, Afyonkarahisar, Turkey. dt.hasan@hotmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0824-4192
Sağlık Bilimleri Üniversitesi · TR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe purpose of this study was to compare efficacy of a manual and an interactive power toothbrush in orthodontic patients by assessing periodontal indexes and bacterial content of saliva samples.

methodsForty patients (20 females, 20 males; age range 12-18 years) with fixed orthodontic appliances were included in the study. The patients were randomly divided into two groups in a 1:1 ratio using sealed envelopes: group 1: manual toothbrush (Oral‑B Ortho Brush, Procter&Gamble Company, Dublin, Ireland), group 2: interactive power toothbrush (Oral‑B Genius 8900, Procter&Gamble Company, Marktheidenfeld, Germany). All participants were given the same toothpaste (Colgate Triple Action, Colgate-Palmolive, New York, NY, USA). The brushing procedure for each patient was described in detail, both orally and visually, utilizing a video demonstration. Plaque and bleeding index scores were recorded for both the lower and upper arches at the beginning of the study (T0) and at weeks 6 (T1) and 12 (T2). In addition, the numbers of Streptococcus (S.) mutans, Lactobacillus (L.) casei, and Porphyromonas (P.) gingivalis bacteria were determined using a real-time polymerase chain reaction (PCR) analysis in saliva samples collected at T0, T1, and T2 times. Mann-Whitney U test and Student's t test were used to compare data between the groups, and one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Friedman tests were used to compare data from different time intervals for each group.

resultsPlaque index values were greater in group 1 at T1 and T2, although there was no difference between the groups at T0. The gingival index scores of both groups were similar at T0, T1, and T2. While group 2 had a larger number of salivary S. mutans at T0 and T2, there was no significant difference between the groups at T1. At all three time points, there was no significant difference in salivary L. casei levels between the groups.

conclusionsAlthough the interactive power toothbrush was more effective at removing plaque than the manual toothbrush, the results of the gingival index did not reflect the plaque scores. The number of certain salivary bacteria and brush type did not appear to have a clear relationship.

Indexed as

Dental PlaqueLacticaseibacillus caseiSalivaStreptococcus mutansToothbrushingAdolescentBacterial LoadChildEquipment DesignEquipment Failure AnalysisFemaleHumansMaleOrthodontic Appliances, FixedSingle-Blind MethodTreatment OutcomeGingivitisOral hygieneOrthodontic patientsPlaque reductionPorphyromonas gingivalis

Identifiers

PMID37266910
OpenAlexW4379093804

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.