ArticleBMC oral health2024
Making plaque assessment easier - a validation study of simplified versions of the Marginal Plaque Index.
Article 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 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.
- Comparison Between Natural Products and Chlorhexidine in Non-Surgical Periodontal Therapy: A Systematic Review of Randomized Clinical Trials.Dentistry journal · 2026Review
- Reliability and Diagnostic Performance of Digital Versus Clinical Assessment of Oral Hygiene and Gingival Health in Older Community-dwelling Adults.Special care in dentistry : official publication of the American Association of Hospital Dentists, the Academy of Dentistry for the Handicapped, and the American Society for Geriatric DentistryObservational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe assessment of plaque indices may be time-consuming and error-prone. Simplification of these indices may increase their utility without compromising their validity. The aim of this study was to evaluate the validity of two simplified versions of the Marginal Plaque Index (MPI).
methodsTwo simplified versions of the MPI as well as the Plaque Control Record (PCR) were derived from full-scale MPI assessments in two studies with four age groups (N = 42 10-year-olds; N = 24 15 year-olds; N = 53 university students (18y-33y); N = 66 parents (32y-57y). Correlations with the Turesky modification of the Quigley-Hein Index (TQHI) and the Papillary Bleeding Index (PBI) were calculated.
resultsThe indices derived from the MPI showed high convergence with each other (all r ≥ 0.94) and with the TQHI (r ≥ 0.80). The concurrent validity of the MPI with the PBI was equal to that of the TQHI in all age groups. The simplified versions of the MPI and the PCR show a lower convergent validity with the PBI than the MPI within parents (p < 0.05). In the other age groups, their convergent validity was equal to that of the MPI. DISCUSSION: Simplification of the MPI does not affect its convergent validity with other plaque indices but may reduce its concurrent validity with the PBI in middle-aged adults.
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.