Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39148252›Full record

Trial reportMedical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research2024

Comparative Efficacy of Medium and Soft Toothbrushes in Plaque Removal and Gingivitis Control.

Manea Musa M Alahmari

Abstract readRandomized Controlled TrialComparative Study
In one paragraph

Trial report in Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

1 author.

Manea Musa M AlahmariDepartment of Periodontics and Community Dental Science, College of Dentistry, King Khalid University, Abha, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND Regularly removing dental plaque is key to good oral hygiene and gingival health promotion. This study aimed to compare the effects of using soft and medium toothbrushes using the plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), and bleeding on probing (BOP) index. MATERIAL AND METHODS A randomized parallel-group study design was used. Sixty-four participants were randomly assigned to 2 similar intervention groups (medium and soft toothbrush groups). The PI, GI, and BOP indexes were used. The median and median difference of PI, GI, and BOP were calculated. SPSS was used for data entry and analysis. Wilcoxon and Mann-Whitney U tests were used for data analysis. RESULTS The median scores of GI, PI, and BOP significantly decreased from 1.8, 1.7, and 2.0, respectively, before using medium toothbrushes to 0.0, 0.1, and 0.0, respectively, after using medium toothbrushes (all P<0.0001). Similarly, the median scores of GI, PI, and BOP significantly decreased from 2.0, 1.7, and 2.0, respectively, before using soft toothbrushes to 1.1, 0.9, and 1.0, respectively, after using soft toothbrushes (P<0.0001). The median differences in GI, PI, and BOP scores among those using medium toothbrushes were higher than the median differences among those using soft toothbrushes [(1.8 vs 0.9), (1.6 vs 0.8), and (2.0 vs 1.0), respectively]. These differences were statistically significant (P<0.0001). CONCLUSIONS This study concludes that medium and soft toothbrushes were effective in removing plaque and controlling gingivitis. Medium toothbrushes were more effective than soft toothbrushes in achieving these outcomes.

Indexed as

Dental PlaqueDental Plaque IndexGingivitisToothbrushingAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOral HygienePeriodontal Index

Identifiers

PMID39148252
PMCPMC11334681

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.