ArticleInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistry2024
Comparative Evaluation of Plaque Removal Potential of Manual Electrical and Chewable Toothbrushes in Children: A Clinical Trial.
Article in International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry, 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.
- Comparative efficacy of electric toothbrush technologies in plaque and gingivitis reduction: a network meta-analysis.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- Impact of Parental Knowledge on Prevention Risk of Caries in Seville Children Between 6 and 14 Years Old, Applying the CAMBRA Protocol.Children (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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Aim and background: To evaluate and compare the efficiency of a manual, electrical, and chewable toothbrush for plaque removal in children. Materials and methods: A total of 58 children aged 8-14 years who reported to the Department of Pedodontics. The children and guardians were familiarized with the disclosing agent, manual toothbrush, electrical toothbrush, and chewable toothbrush before the commencement of the study with the help of video and verbal demonstrations. Thirty children who were interested in participating in the study were included. Results: The study consisted of 30 participants who were divided into three groups of 10 each-group A: manual toothbrush, group B: electrical toothbrush, and group C: chewable toothbrush. A disclosing agent was applied, and Oral Hygiene Index-Simplified (OHI-S) and Toothbrush Quality and Hygiene Index (TQHI) scores were recorded at baseline and after 1 week. The data was tabulated and subjected to statistical analysis. The data was analyzed using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 23.0. Intragroup comparisons, that is, between baseline and 1 week, were performed using the paired samples Conclusion: The plaque removal efficiency of electric toothbrushes is the highest, followed by the chewable toothbrush group, while the manual toothbrush group is the least. The chewable toothbrush highly surpasses the manual toothbrush group as it contains xylitol substances, which reduce How to cite this article: Mareddy AR, Reddy VN, Done V,
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.