Observational studyBMC oral health2025
Exploring the potential of interdental brush in oral cytology: a pilot study on sampling efficiency.
Observational study 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.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundWith the renewed interest in brush biopsies, particularly for screening oral potentially malignant disorders and cancers, understanding the efficacy of available brush types in oral cytology is crucial. This study aims to compare the effectiveness of interdental brush sampling with commonly used cytology brushes in oral cytology evaluation.
methodsThe study design was an observational clinical study. Brush biopsies were collected from the buccal mucosa of 99 healthy volunteers using an Interdental Brush- TePe Original Interdental Brush (TePe, Malmö, Sweden) (Cell sampling-Interdental Brush (CSIB)), Cytobrush Plus GT (Medscand Medical AB, Sweden) (Cell sampling device 1 (CSD1)), and CervexBrush (Rovers, Oss, Netherlands) (Cell sampling device 2 (CSD2)). Samples were evaluated for cellularity, depth of the epithelial layer, and cellular integrity. Results were compared between brush types using the Friedman test, and multiple comparisons were examined using the Dunn test. The significance level was set at p < 0.05.
resultsOf the 99 cases, 59.6% were female and 40.4% were male, with a prevalence of smoking and alcohol consumption at 43.4%. The mean age was 24.3 years (± 4.5). There were no significant differences in cellularity between the brush types (p = 0.205). Mild cellularity was observed at rates of 3%, 9.1%, and 9.1% for CSD1, CSIB, and CSD2, respectively. Parabasal/basal layer cells were detected in 1% of samples collected with CSD1 and 4% with CSD2, while CSIB samples contained only superficial/intermediate cells. CSIB produced an inadequate integrity rate of 30.3%, whereas neither CSD2 nor CSD1 yielded samples with inadequate integrity.
conclusionsInterdental brushes may have potential as accessible and practical tools for chairside cytological screening. The CSIB obtained high-cellularity samples; however, it demonstrated low scores in cellular integrity. Future oral cytological studies may explore the modifications in interdental brush design to improve its potential in sampling for cell preservation and integrity.
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.