ArticleClinical oral investigations2026
Comparative efficacy of electric toothbrush technologies in plaque and gingivitis reduction: a network meta-analysis.
Article 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.
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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe comparative efficacy of different types of electric toothbrushes relative to each other and to manual toothbrushes remains a subject of clinical investigation. This network meta-analysis (NMA) aims to rank the efficacy of various electric toothbrush technologies for plaque and gingivitis reduction.
methodsA systematic search of PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science was conducted from inception to June 2025. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing electric (oscillating-rotating, sonic, ultrasonic, other) and manual toothbrushes were included. Two reviewers independently performed study selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment. A frequentist NMA was performed, and treatments were ranked using Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking (SUCRA) values. Consistency between direct and indirect evidence was evaluated.
resultsNineteen RCTs were included. In terms of plaque reduction, oscillating-rotating brushes were ranked first (SUCRA = 89.2%), followed by sonic (SUCRA = 72.4%), ultrasonic (SUCRA = 54.1%), other electric (SUCRA = 45.3%), and manual toothbrushes (SUCRA = 18.3%). A similar ranking was observed for gingivitis reduction. Subgroup analyses indicated superior benefits for orthodontic patients and children. The overall risk of bias was low, and no significant inconsistency was detected.
conclusionOscillating-rotating electric toothbrushes demonstrated the highest probability of being among the most effective interventions for reducing plaque and gingivitis among the compared technologies. This evidence suggests that they may be considered a preferred choice for improved oral hygiene in clinical practice, particularly in high-risk groups such as orthodontic patients and children.
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.