ArticleDentistry journal2023
Design and Initial Evaluation of a Novel Oral Hygiene Technology for a Special Needs Population: A New Way to Clean.
Article in Dentistry journal, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Effect of 6-Week Advanced Oral Care on Oral Microbiome and Mycobiome Composition in People With Dementia Living in Residential Aged Care.Clinical and experimental dental research · 2025Article
- Clinical Use of Paraprobiotics for Pregnant Women with Periodontitis: Randomized Clinical Trial.Dentistry journal · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
9.4 million People have swallowing problems in the US. In special needs populations, routine oral hygiene procedures such as tooth brushing can result in aspiration of microbial laden fluids leading to a significant systemic challenge. Aspiration may lead to pneumonia in susceptible populations. These circumstances indicate the need for innovative approaches to oral hygiene for special needs, convalescent, the elderly populations, and young children learning to brush who can ingest excess fluoride which causes mottled enamel. Methods include describing some of the design considerations of the new prototype fabrication and microbiological evaluation of this new device, as well a comparison study of the versions 2 and 3 of the oral care device. Results concluded that version 3.0 regarding patient ease of use was better in comparison to version 2, which was the major difference, and 90% in both groups said they would recommend the new toothbrush. In the microbiological evaluation no growth was seen on any plates containing samples from either the experimental or the control after 48 h of incubation.
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.