Trial reportInternational journal of dental hygiene2025
Effect of a powered and a manual toothbrush in subjects susceptible to gingival recession: A 36-month randomized controlled clinical study.
Trial report in International journal of dental hygiene, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effect of a powered and a manual toothbrush in subjects susceptible to gingival recession: A 36-month randomized controlled clinical study.International journal of dental hygiene · 2025Trial
- Guided biofilm therapy versus conventional protocol-clinical outcomes in non-surgical periodontal therapy.BMC oral health · 2024Trial
- The Journey of Oral Hygiene: The Past, the Present, the Future.Journal of periodontal research · 2026Article
- The Impact of Toothbrushing on Oral Health, Gingival Recession, and Tooth Wear-A Narrative Review.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveThe objective of this long-term clinical study was to evaluate the influence of a newly developed powered toothbrush (PT) on the size and number of pre-existing gingival recessions (GR) in comparison to a manual toothbrush (MT).
methodsThis was a prospective, single-blind, parallel-group, randomized controlled clinical study. Participants without periodontitis, but with at least two teeth (index teeth) showing GR ≥2 mm were randomized to brush either twice daily with a MT or with a PT with a linear magnetic drive causing the round brush head to produce gentle micro vibrations along with oscillating-rotating movements. Primary outcome parameter was the mean change of GR at the index teeth over 36 months.
resultsTotally 87 out of 92 participants completed the study (MT/PT: n = 42/n = 45). At the 36-month evaluation the mean (standard deviation) change of GR at index teeth differed significantly between MT 0.17 (0.77) and PT -0.10 (0.63) (p = 0.013). Furthermore, the amount of GR sites which improved ≥1 mm or remained stable during the study period did not differ between MT and PT, but the number of sites worsened ≥1 mm was significantly in favour for PT (MT 23 (25.5%) versus PT 10 (10.6%); p = 0.009). A binary logistic regression identified tooth type (OR = 2.991 for pre-/molar (1.096 [95% CI 1.002-8.933]; p = 0.050)) and manual brushing (OR = 3.341 (1.206 [95% CI 1291-8648]; p = 0.013)) as risk factors for recession impairment at the index teeth. There were no differences between groups for adverse events.
conclusionIn a population with pre-existing gingival recessions and consequently a high risk of developing further recession the PT seems to be favourable with regard to further development of GR.
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.