Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38447550›Full record

Trial reportCaries research2024

Tooth Brushing Learning Methods: Differential or Conventional? - A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.

Loay Leghrouz, Manasi R Khole, Christian H Splieth, Julian Schmoeckel

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Caries research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 13% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Loay LeghrouzDepartment of Preventive and Pediatric Dentistry, University of Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.
Manasi R KholeDepartment of Preventive and Pediatric Dentistry, University of Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.
Christian H SpliethDepartment of Preventive and Pediatric Dentistry, University of Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.
Julian SchmoeckelDepartment of Preventive and Pediatric Dentistry, University of Greifswald, Greifswald, Germany.
Universität Greifswald · DE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionProper tooth brushing is a complicated process for children. Therefore, the aim of this study was to investigate the effect of differential learning to improve tooth brushing in children.

methodsIn this prospective, controlled, single-blinded, randomized clinical trial, 58 children between 3 and 8 years of age (mean: 5.7 ± 1.5 years; 29 female) were randomly assigned to test or control group through the child's self-drawing of an unlabeled envelope from a box. All children received oral hygiene instructions and information in these sealed envelopes and were asked to follow the corresponding instructions at home for 28 days. Children in the test group received instructions with exercises using the differential learning method, whereas the children in the control group received the usual tooth brushing instructions.

resultsAt baseline and planned follow-ups after 4 and 12 weeks, plaque and gingival indices (QHI, PBI) were recorded in both groups by 2 calibrated and blinded investigators. At baseline, there were no significant differences between the test and control groups regarding plaque and gingival indices (QHI: 4.1 ± 0.5 vs. 4.1 ± 0.4; p = 0.7; PBI: 0.6 ± 0.3 vs. 0.6 ± 0.3; p = 0.7). At the 1st and 2nd follow-up, both groups showed improved oral health indices, but there was an overall better improvement in the test group. While the difference in gingival indices was statistically significant in the 1st recall (PBI/test: 0.1 ± 0.2 vs. control: 0.3 ± 0.2; p < 0.001), the difference in plaque indices was not (QHI/test: 2.1 ± 0.9; control: 2.6 ± 0.9; p = 0.07). At the 2nd recall (mean week = 19.5 weeks), the test group showed statistically significant and clinically relevant better oral health indices than the control group (2nd recall, QHI/test: 2.1 ± 0.9 vs. control: 3.2 ± 1; p < 0.001; PBI/test: 0.1 ± 0.2 vs. control: 0.5 ± 0.2; p < 0.001).

conclusionIn conclusion, differential learning leads to oral hygiene improvement in children with high caries risk and initially poor oral hygiene, which was superior to the conventional learning method through repetition in the medium term.

Indexed as

Dental Plaque IndexPeriodontal IndexToothbrushingChildChild, PreschoolDental PlaqueFemaleFollow-Up StudiesHealth Education, DentalHumansLearningMaleOral HygieneProspective StudiesSingle-Blind MethodChildrenDental prophylaxisEducational methodsOral hygienePrevention

Identifiers

PMID38447550
PMCPMC11313045
OpenAlexW4392578554

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.