ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2024
Can traditional oral hygiene methods compete with conventional toothbrushes in effectiveness?
Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 2024. 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.
- Silicone toothbrushes: A scoping review of an underutilized tool in global oral health.PLOS global public health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
designThe study was designed as a single-blinded, parallel, randomized controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of the Salvadora persica toothbrush (MTB), Salvadora persica chewing stick (MCS), and a standard toothbrush (STB) in controlling plaque and gingivitis. A total of 78 participants were randomly divided into three groups and instructed to use their assigned oral hygiene tool in a standardized manner for three. CASE SELECTION: Participants were non-dental students and staff of Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur Campus, selected through convenience sampling. They met specific inclusion criteria, such as being systemically healthy, having ≥20 teeth, and having a Basic Periodontal Examination score of 0, 1, or 2, with no periodontal pockets greater than 5.5 mm. DATA ANALYSIS: Clinical outcomes were measured using the Plaque Index (PI) and Periodontal Inflamed Surface Area (PISA) at baseline, one-, and three-weeks post-intervention. Data analysis was performed using mixed-model analysis of variance for continuous variables and Fisher's exact test for categorical variables.
resultsAll three groups showed significant improvements in plaque levels and severity of gingivitis from baseline to three weeks post-intervention. The MCS group demonstrated a significant improvement in mean PISA values of the anterior teeth compared to the MTB and STB groups. However, there was no significant difference in plaque level reduction or overall gingivitis severity among the three groups. This indicates that when used correctly, Salvadora persica toothbrushes and chewing sticks are as effective as standard toothbrushes in plaque control and gingival health.
conclusionsThe study concludes that both Salvadora persica toothbrushes and chewing sticks can serve as effective alternatives to the standard toothbrush for plaque control and gingival health. This showcases the beneficial anti-plaque and anti-gingivitis properties of Salvadora persica. However, the effectiveness of these oral hygiene tools is contingent upon the correct usage techniques.
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.