Trial reportJournal of periodontology2025
Sustainability of regular use of interdental cleaning tools in periodontally healthy individuals.
Trial report in Journal of periodontology, 2025. 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.
- Sustainability of regular use of interdental cleaning tools in periodontally healthy individuals.Journal of periodontology · 2025Trial
- Real-World Safety Profile of EVO and EVO+ Implantable Collamer Lenses: A Retrospective Study Based on FDA Surveillance Data.Ophthalmology and therapy · 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
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe aim of this study was to compare the sustainability of regular use of 2 different interdental cleaning tools in 24 weeks by periodontally healthy individuals as a component of primary prevention.
methodsPeriodontally healthy individuals were randomly assigned to dental floss or rubber interdental pick group. Participants received an oral care kit and a calendar to record the times they used the floss/pick. Full-mouth scores of plaque and bleeding were recorded. They were recalled on the 8th and 24th weeks, and asked to bring back the waste of the interdental cleaning tools. Regular use was defined as using the tool ≥ 3 days/week, and sustainability is the number of weeks with regular use. Data were analyzed using appropriate statistical tests.
resultsFifty-four participants completed the study protocol. Of these, 28 were in the rubber interdental pick, and 26 were in the dental floss group. In the rubber pick group, the mean number of weeks with regular use was 12.61 out of 24 weeks, while it was 4.96 in the dental floss group. The difference between the study groups in terms of the sustainability of regular use of the interdental cleaning tool was statistically significant (p = 0.003). Plaque and bleeding scores were similar in the study groups at baseline and recall (p > 0.05), and negatively correlated with the number of weeks with regular use (p < 0.05).
conclusionWithin the limits of this study, the use of rubber interdental picks can be recommended for superior sustainability in periodontally healthy individuals, provided that the interdental space allows passage. PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARY: This study compared how well rubber interdental picks and dental floss work over 6 months for people with healthy gums. It aimed to find out which tool people use more consistently. Interdental cleaning is important because brushing alone does not remove all the plaque. Regular cleaning between teeth helps to prevent gum diseases and tooth decay. Fifty-four volunteers with healthy gums were divided into 2 groups: 1 group used rubber interdental picks, and the other used dental floss. Participants were instructed to use their assigned tool daily and follow a regular oral care routine. Their usage and oral health were monitored throughout the study. Results showed that people used rubber interdental picks more regularly than dental floss. On average, those using picks continued for about 12.6 weeks out of 24 weeks, while floss users maintained the habit for approximately 5 weeks. As a conclusion, rubber interdental picks seem to be more likely to be used consistently and can be more effective for maintaining gum health compared to dental floss.
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.