ArticleEvidence-based dentistry2025
Should clinicians recommend oscillating-rotating toothbrushes over sonic models for superior plaque and gingivitis control?
Article in Evidence-based dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
a commentary onAdam R, Grender J, Timm H, Qaqish J, Goyal C R. A randomized controlled trial evaluating a novel oscillating-rotating electric toothbrush versus a sonic toothbrush for plaque and gingivitis. Am J Dent 2025; 38: 3-8. DATA SOURCES: The study was a rigorously designed, single-center, examiner-blinded, randomized controlled trial. It included adult participants presenting with clinical signs of gingivitis and visible plaque. Subjects were randomly assigned to use either an oscillating-rotating electric toothbrush or a high-end sonic electric toothbrush. Both groups brushed twice daily for four weeks using a standard sodium fluoride toothpaste. Gingival inflammation was evaluated using the Modified Gingival Index and the Gingival Bleeding Index. Plaque accumulation was assessed via the Rustogi Modification of the Navy Plaque Index. Data were collected at baseline, immediately after a single brushing session and after four weeks of consistent use. STUDY SELECTION: Participants were adults diagnosed with plaque-induced gingivitis. They were randomized into two arms: one group used the Oral-B iO2 toothbrush with the Ultimate Clean brush head in Daily Clean mode while the other group used the usmile Marble-Art toothbrush with the Advanced Whitening brush head in high-intensity clean mode. All participants followed a standardized brushing regimen. Examiner blinding was implemented to reduce observational bias and enhance objectivity. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Gingival inflammation and plaque levels were assessed at three distinct intervals. The percentage of participants achieving gingival health defined as fewer than ten percent of bleeding sites was also measured. Comparisons were performed within and between groups. The threshold for statistical significance was set at a probability value less than 0.05.
resultsBoth devices led to statistically significant reductions in plaque accumulation and gingival inflammation. However, the oscillating-rotating toothbrush demonstrated superior performance across all parameters. Participants using this toothbrush exhibited a significantly greater reduction in Modified Gingival Index scores and a marked decrease in the number of bleeding sites. A higher proportion of users in this group attained gingival health status. Plaque removal was more effective following a single brushing session with notable improvements observed throughout the entire mouth, interproximal surfaces and along the gingival margins. These benefits were maintained at the four-week follow-up.
conclusionThe oscillating-rotating toothbrush achieved superior clinical outcomes in the reduction of plaque and gingival inflammation when compared to the sonic toothbrush. Its efficacy was observed both immediately and after consistent use over a four-week period.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40275115What 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.