ArticleCaries research2026
Can Plaque Indices Effectively Indicate the True Amount of Plaque?
Article in Caries research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Partial-mouth plaque recording revisited: evaluation of tooth- and surface-based subsets using a data-driven benchmark.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- Planimetric quantification of plaque in patients with multibracket appliances using an intraoral scanner - proof-of-concept.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- Mapping dental biofilms: from plaque index through planimetry to volumetric analysis.Clinical oral investigations · 2026Article
- Does proper flossing performance translate into effective plaque removal?Clinical oral investigations · 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
<p>Introduction: Clinical plaque indices are well-established methods for quantifying the effects of plaque control, for example, with different toothbrush types. However, effect sizes observed in such studies depend on the index used. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate how Turesky-modified Quigley-Hein Plaque Index (T-QHPI), Rustogi-modified Navy Plaque Index (RMNPI), and RMNPI modified by Bretz (RMNPI-Bretz) scores correspond to actual plaque amounts.
methodsThirty participants, 24.0 ± 4.1 years old, were included. Following 72 h without oral hygiene and after subsequent habitual toothbrushing, disclosed plaque (Mira-2-Ton®) was captured using intraoral scans (Carestream 3800). Scoring grids corresponding to the indices were projected onto standardised images on the oral and vestibular sides of the Ramfjord teeth (16, 21, 24, 36, 41, and 44) and scored. Afterwards, actual plaque coverage was quantified planimetrically (P%).
resultsAll methods yield significant plaque reduction after brushing (P%: 42.1 ± 14.0%, T-QHPI: 32.7 ± 9.5%, RMNPI: 19.7 ± 9.5%, RMNPI-Bretz: 30.2 ± 9.9; p ≤ 0.001 each). However, Bland-Altman analysis revealed distinct systematic and proportional biases in relation to P%. As P% was not linearly related to the index values, equations were derived, enabling the conversion into actual plaque coverage. Those were applied to T-QHPI and RMNPI data from the literature to allow a deeper understanding of effect sizes.
conclusionsPlaque indices only partially reflect actual plaque coverage. Compared to RMNPI, T-QHPI and RMNPI-Bretz gave closer agreement with the planimetric measurements. These findings highlight the limitations of traditional plaque indices in accurately representing plaque reduction, while offering a new approach to enhance the interpretability of oral hygiene studies. </p>.
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.