Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42154306›Full record

Trial reportClinical oral investigations2026

Evaluation of a novel dual-headed toothbrush design for periodontal health: split- mouth randomized blind clinical trial.

Sally A ElHaddad, Mohammed N Zahid, Reda M Dimashkieh, Amir M Demachkia, Fatimah Ibrahim Al Khalifa, Ruaa Abdulaziz Ayami, Ahmad Mohamed ElShall, Nada Kahil, Ahmed Algohar, Mohiddin R Dimashkieh

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in Clinical oral investigations, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Sally A ElHaddadAssist. Prof. Periodontology and Oral Medicine, Preventive Dental Sciences Dept, College of Dentistry, Dar AlUloom University, AlFalah, Riyadh, 11512, Saudi Arabia. s.elhaddad@dau.edu.sa.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0009-5473-9808
Mohammed N ZahidPreventive Dental Sciences Dept, College of Dentistry, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, AlKharj, Saudi Arabia.
Reda M DimashkiehMyclinic International, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Amir M DemachkiaDental Materials and Prosthodontics, Institute of Science and Technology, Sao Paulo State University (UNESP), Sao Hose Dos Campos, Sao Paulo, Brazil.
Fatimah Ibrahim Al KhalifaCollege of Dentistry, Dar AlUloom University, Riyadh, 11512, Saudi Arabia.
Ruaa Abdulaziz AyamiPeriodontics and Community Dentistry Dept, College of Dentistry, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Ahmad Mohamed ElShallGP Dentist, Ministry of Health and Population, Cairo, Egypt.
Nada KahilCollege of Dentistry, Dar AlUloom University, Riyadh, 11512, Saudi Arabia.
Ahmed AlgoharDepartment of Prosthodontics, College of Dentistry, Prince Sattam Bin Abdulaziz University, Al-Kharj, Saudi Arabia.
Mohiddin R DimashkiehProf. Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry Dept, College of Dentistry, Dar AlUloom University, Alfalah, Riyadh, 11512, Saudi Arabia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOptimal oral health largely depends on the successful removal of plaque through effective brushing, but success typically relies on user technique, time, and adherence. The aim was to compare the effectiveness of a newly introduced dual-headed toothbrush with a conventional single-headed toothbrush in control of plaque and gingival health using a split-mouth design.

methodsIn the study, 37 dental professionals used two types of toothbrushes: a dual-headed toothbrush on one side of the mouth (Test side) and a conventional single-headed toothbrush on the other side (Control side). The study compared plaque removal, gingival status, and brushing time, assessing clinical outcomes using plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), and modified sulcus bleeding index (mSBI) at baseline, 2 weeks, and 4 weeks. At the end, participants completed a Likert scale questionnaire.

resultsBoth types of toothbrushes were effective in enhancing oral hygiene over time; however, dual-headed toothbrush group showed significant short-term reductions in plaque accumulation, gingival inflammation, and bleeding, particularly at the 2-week interval. A significant majority of participants (89.2%) rated dual-headed brush as "very easy" to use. Using a dual-headed toothbrush significantly reduces the brushing time (0.54 ± 0.17 vs. 0.99 ± 0.05 min for a conventional single-headed toothbrush), suggesting enhanced time efficiency.

conclusionA dual-headed toothbrush would be more effective, faster, and easier to use than a single-headed brush. It would be a convenient alternative, especially for individuals with time constraints.

Indexed as

Dental PlaqueToothbrushingAdultDental Plaque IndexEquipment DesignFemaleHumansMalePeriodontal IndexSingle-Blind MethodDental plaqueDual- headedGingival healthOral hygieneSingle- headedToothbrush

Identifiers

PMID42154306

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.