Trial reportBMC oral health2026
Evaluation of D&C Red No. 33 as an alternative to erythrosine for plaque disclosure: a randomized crossover trial.
Trial report in BMC oral health, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPlaque disclosing agents facilitate the visualization of dental biofilm and support effective oral hygiene instruction. Erythrosine remains the most commonly used agent; however, concerns regarding its safety and regulatory restrictions have prompted the search for alternative colorants. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the clinical performance and user acceptability of three plaque disclosing formulations: 3% erythrosine, 3% D&C Red No. 33, and a mixed formulation of 3% D&C Red No. 33 with green powder.
methodsA randomized cross-over clinical design was employed. Subjective outcomes were assessed using visual analogue scales (VAS) for plaque visibility, residual staining, brushing difficulty, and taste satisfaction. Objective plaque accumulation was measured with the Turesky modification of the Quigley-Hein Plaque Index (TQHPI) by a calibrated examiner before and after oral hygiene procedures.
resultsErythrosine produced the highest plaque visibility scores, significantly exceeding those of both alternative agents. However, all formulations showed comparable percentage reductions in plaque index following brushing and flossing. Residual staining was greatest with erythrosine, particularly on oral mucosa and lips, whereas D&C Red No. 33 produced the least. The mixed formulation yielded intermediate outcomes but demonstrated the lowest overall plaque visibility. Participants reported significantly greater difficulty in stain removal with erythrosine compared to D&C Red No. 33. Taste acceptability was highest for D&C Red No. 33, intermediate for the mixed formulation, and lowest for erythrosine.
conclusionsWhile erythrosine provides superior plaque visibility, its drawbacks in staining persistence, brushing difficulty, and taste limit acceptability. D&C Red No. 33 demonstrated a more favorable balance between effectiveness and user acceptance, supporting its potential as an alternative plaque disclosing agent.
trial registrationThe trial was registered at Thai Clinical Trials Registry (Trial registration number: TCTR20250313002) on 13 March 2025.
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.