ArticleBMC oral health2025
Prophylaxis during multibracket appliance treatment - a survey among general dentists in Germany.
Article in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
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
backgroundAccomplishing good oral hygiene represents a major challenge during multibracket appliance (MBA) treatment. In Germany, children, and adolescents between 6 and 18 years of age can attend an individual prophylaxis (IP) program free of charge twice a year. As part of this, they undergo training and receive recommendations to enhance oral hygiene. However, it remains unclear whether the general dentist feels responsible for prophylaxis during MBA treatment and how they adapt the IP sessions compared to patients without fixed appliances.
aimTo assess how general dentists manage IP in children and adolescents undergoing MBA treatment.
methodA questionnaire was sent to 2744 general dental practices in the region of Hesse, Germany. Dentists were asked regarding their opinion on the responsibility for prophylaxis during MBA treatment, the oral hygiene recommendations given to those patients and how they adapt the prophylaxis sessions to special MBA needs.
resultsThe response rate was 37.0% (n = 1014). While only 8% of the respondents consider the orthodontist as primarily responsible for IP in MBA patients, the majority considers the general dentist (46%) or both, the general dentist and the orthodontist (46%) to be responsible for IP in MBA patients. The vast majority of respondents answered that compared to patients without fixed appliances, MBA patients receive different oral hygiene recommendations during IP sessions. These recommendations are mostly related to 1. a longer toothbrushing duration (> 3 min) and 2. the use of additional tools for mechanical plaque removal (interdental brushes).
conclusionThe majority of respondents perceive the general dentist as having primary or shared responsibility for IP during MBA treatment and adapt oral hygiene recommendations to the special requirements. However, the large proportion of perceived shared responsibility also suggests considerable room for improvement. Furthermore, analysis showed a large range regarding oral hygiene recommendations, indicating the need for standardized clinical guidelines.
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.