Trial reportBMC oral health2024
A short-term evaluation of oral hygiene education methods in fixed orthodontics patients: a randomized clinical trial comparing assistant training, software, and social media.
Trial report in BMC oral health, 2024. 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.
- Exploring mobile applications for oral health promotion: a randomized clinical trial.Canadian journal of dental hygiene : CJDH = Journal canadien de l'hygiene dentaire : JCHD · 2026Trial
- Digital Manufacturing and Periodontal Performance of CAD/CAM-Customized Orthodontic Molar Bands Compared with Standard Stainless-Steel Bands.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2026Trial
- Application of artificial intelligence in oral health management: challenges and opportunities.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- The Effect of Using a Smartphone App on Oral Hygiene and Brushing Training During Fixed Orthodontic Therapy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo compare the effectiveness of different oral hygiene education strategies on periodontal health in fixed orthodontic patients in a one-month period: assistant-led instruction, social media-based education, and custom-made software.
methodsSixty orthodontic patients from Mashhad University of Medical Sciences' Dentistry School were randomly assigned into three groups. Each group received oral health education differently: via assistant instruction, educational videos on social media, or a researcher-designed software for Android smartphones. After a month, participants' oral health was evaluated using the plaque index (PI) and the gingival index (GI).
resultsAssistant-led education group demonstrated the highest PI (1.26 ± 0.70) and GI (0.92 ± 0.67), while the software group reported the lowest indices (PI = 0.68, GI = 0.46 ± 0.46). The social media group's measurements fell between these extremes (PI = 0.89 ± 0.75, GI = 0.60 ± 0.52). Significant group differences were found for both PI and GI (P = 0.028 and P = 0.047, respectively). Pairwise comparison revealed significantly lower PI and GI in the software group compared to the assistant group. No significant differences were found between the social media and other groups.
conclusionOur results suggest that the use of specially designed software could be the most effective strategy for improving oral hygiene in orthodontic patients. Meanwhile, traditional assistant-led education showed the least effectiveness. The study supports the potential benefit of utilizing digital tools, such as bespoke software and social media, in oral health education for orthodontic patients.
trial registrationThe study was registered in the Iranian Registry of Clinical Trials (IRCT) database with the identification code IRCT20200609047705N2 in 13.07.2021.
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.