Trial reportBMC oral health2025
Effectiveness of three manual toothbrushes with different bristle designs in terms of plaque removal and gingival inflammation: A randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC oral health, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPlaque is causative factor for gingivitis and periodontitis. Mechanical plaque removal is one of most commonly used method. Toothbrush has many modifications since decade. New bristles claim to remove more plaque and improve oral hygiene. The objective was to assess the effectiveness of three different bristle designed toothbrushes in terms of plaque removal and gingival inflammation.
methodsA concurrent parallel randomized clinical trial was done among 105 female undergraduate medical students in which both examiner and analyser were blinded throughout the study period. The population was divided into three groups A, B and C (1:1:1) according to computer generated random list and assigned three different toothbrushes Oral B pro health (Crisscross), Oral B shiny clean toothbrush (Zigzag), Oral B sensitive care (Flat), respectively. Along with the toothbrushes, a fluoridated toothpaste was also provided. At baseline proper oral hygiene instruction and brushing method was demonstrated. Baseline plaque and gingival ghbvindex score was assessed by using Silness J and Loe H (1964) and Loe H and Silness J (1963), respectively. The follow up data collections were done at 7,14 and 21 days. Friedman's test was used to assess the association of plaque and gingival scores in different follow up. Pairwise PI and GI score were recorded and intergroup comparison of plaque and gingival scores were calculated by using Kruskal Wallis test.
resultThere were 35 participants allotted in each group. When compared to overall plaque and gingival score, there were significant reduction in every follow up (p < 0.001). However, Zigzag tooth brush showed more reduction in plaque and gingival score; mean rank scores were 38.69 and 26.56, respectively but it was not statistically significant (p > 0.05).
conclusionThis study showed that the three different toothbrushes were equally effective in plaque removal and reduction of gingival inflammation. The Zigzag toothbrush showed maximum reduction in plaque and gingival inflammation; however, the difference was not significant. CLINICAL
trial registrationThe study was retrospectively registered in ANZCTR on 21/02/2025 with trial registration number ACTRN12625000213448.
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.