Trial reportEuropean journal of orthodontics2023
Long-term comparison of the efficacy of manual versus powered tooth brushing in adolescent orthodontic patients: a single-centre, parallel design randomized clinical trial.
Trial report in European journal of orthodontics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
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
BACKGROUND AND
objectivesTo-date, there is no evidence comparing the long-term efficacy of powered and manual toothbrushes in adolescents undergoing fixed appliance treatment. The trial compared the efficacy of manual versus powered toothbrush in controlling plaque and gingival health in patients undergoing fixed treatment in respect of both the short- and long-term. TRIAL
designThis was a randomized, parallel, controlled single-blind clinical trial, undertaken in a hospital setting, for which the consolidated standards of reporting trials guidelines were followed.
methodsNinety-two adolescent participants planned to undergo fixed appliance therapy, were randomly assigned to either a manual or powered toothbrush, with allocation concealment. The outcome measures were plaque and gingival indices and bleeding on probing, assessed at baseline (prior to fixed appliance), one-, six- and 12-months.
resultsThe final sample included 84 participants, aged 12-18 (M=14.1, SD=1.93) years, with 40 (47%) were using a manual and 44 (52%) a powered toothbrush. The intervention (powered vs. manual toothbrush) itself appeared insignificant with regards to the gingival index (GI) (95%CI -0.1 - 0.03; P=0.26), plaque index (PI) (95%CI -0.13 - 0.14; P=0.93) and bleeding on probing (BoP) (95%CI -0.03 - 0.03; P=0.98) at any of the time points assessed. However, periodontal health indicators and plaque control significantly worsened (p<0.01), over the 12-month follow-up period, following placement of the fixed appliances placement.
conclusionWhilst no differences were found between manual and powered toothbrushes in controlling plaque and gingival health, in participants undergoing fixed orthodontic treatment, both were suboptimal and highlighted the need for greater patient support and monitoring. TRIAL REGISTRATION DETAILS: https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN74268923 Trial funding: Colgate-Palmolive (USA).
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.