ArticleBMC oral health2026
Efficacy of combined oral hygiene devices for interproximal plaque removal: an in vitro study.
Article 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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis study compared interproximal plaque removal rates when oral hygiene devices were used with a manual toothbrush.
methodsArtificial plaque was applied to the mesial interproximal surface of a lower left first molar mounted on a jaw model within a simulator. Removal was compared among 10 groups, including toothbrush alone (TB) and combinations of single-tufted brushes (Tuft), interdental brushes (IDB), and dental floss (string floss [SF] or holder-type floss [HF]). Five dental professionals performed the procedures. Pre- and post-cleaning images were analyzed to determine removal rates. Statistical analysis was conducted using a linear mixed-effects model with Tukey's post-hoc test.
resultsThe estimated marginal mean (EMM) for the TB group was 0.44 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.37-0.50). All combinations achieved significantly higher removal rates (p < 0.001). The TB, IDB, and SF combination achieved the highest EMM (0.93; 95% CI: 0.87-0.99). No significant differences were observed among the three SF combinations; however, all three demonstrated significantly higher rates than other protocols (p < 0.001).
conclusionsAdjunctive devices significantly improve interproximal plaque control compared to toothbrushing alone. Under the conditions of this experimental model, the combinations that included string floss demonstrated the highest efficacy for physical plaque removal. Further studies are needed in different anatomical settings and broader user populations.
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.