Trial reportClinical oral investigations2024
Cleansing efficacy of an oral irrigator with microburst technology in adolescent orthodontic patients. A randomized-controlled crossover study.
Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2024. 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.
- The effects of using water flosser versus interdental brush on gingival health in patients with mandibular bonded retainer - a randomized controlled trial.BMC oral health · 2026Trial
- Micro-implant anchorage in adolescent orthodontics: a promising and advantageous option.American journal of translational research · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesSimplifying interdental space cleaning is a constantly discussed topic. The present study aimed to compare the cleansing efficacy of an oral irrigator with that of dental flossing in adolescent patients with fixed braces after four weeks of home-use. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe study design is a randomized, single-blinded cross-over study. Following a twenty-eight-day period of product utilization in a home setting, a comparative analysis was conducted on hygiene indices, the Rustogi Modified Navy Plaque Index (RMNPI) and the Gingival Bleeding Index (GBI), between the test group (oral irrigator) and the control group (dental floss).
resultsSeventeen adolescent individuals completed the study. After 28 days of cleaning with the oral irrigator, RMNPI was 58.81% (55.31-66.47) compared to 59.46% (52.68-68.67) with dental floss (p = 0.070). Subgroup analyses did not indicate the superiority of either method. GBI after the test phase with the oral irrigator was 28.93% (23.21-33.97) and insignificantly higher compared to 26.40% (21.01-31.41) achieved with dental floss (p = 0.1585).
conclusionsNeither of the two products demonstrated statistically significant superiority in terms of cleaning efficacy. Therefore, no recommendation can be made in favor of one over the other. It was found that the high initial hygiene indices for fixed orthodontic appliances could be improved through increased awareness and precise instruction. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: For adolescent patients who struggle to use interdental brushes an oral irrigator may be suggested as a simple alternative in hard-to-reach areas, such as those around a fixed dental appliance.
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.