ArticleInternational journal of clinical pediatric dentistry2026
A Comparative Evaluation of Plaque Removal Efficacy of a Chewable Toothpaste Tablet with Conventional Toothpaste Using Conventional Toothbrush and Powered Toothbrush in Children of Age-group 8-12 Years.
Article in International journal of clinical pediatric dentistry, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Oral hygiene is a crucial aspect of children's healthcare, and the effectiveness of plaque removal is one of the key indicators of good oral health. Traditional toothpaste and toothbrushes have been the cornerstone of oral hygiene practices; however, recent innovations like chewable toothpaste tablets offer a promising alternative. This study aims to compare the plaque removal efficacy and acceptance of a chewable toothpaste tablet with conventional toothpaste using both conventional and powered toothbrushes in children aged 8-12 years. By investigating the effectiveness, acceptability, and user experience of these different oral hygiene methods, the current research seeks to provide valuable insights for parents, caregivers, and healthcare professionals looking to promote optimal oral health in children. Materials and methods: The study included 100 participants divided into four groups as follows-group A: conventional toothpaste (Dentoshine) and conventional toothbrush (Oral-B Kids Soft Manual Toothbrush), group B: conventional toothpaste (Dentoshine) and powered toothbrush (Oral-B Pro-Health Jr Battery Powered Kids Automatic Toothbrush), group C: chewable toothpaste tablet (Teeth-a-bit) and conventional toothbrush (Oral-B Kids Soft Manual Toothbrush), and group D: chewable toothpaste tablet (Teeth-a-bit) and powered toothbrush (Oral-B Pro-Health Jr Battery Powered Kids Automatic Toothbrush).The participants of these four groups were advised to use the respective oral hygiene aids for 4 weeks. The oral hygiene index-simplified (OHI-S) and gingival index (GI) scores were recorded before and after 4 weeks, and the results were evaluated and analyzed using SPSS software 22.0. Results: Within the limitation of the study, it was seen that the chewable toothpaste tablet and conventional toothpaste using conventional toothbrush and powered toothbrush were equally effective in plaque removal. Conclusion: The findings suggest that the conventional and electric toothbrush with conventional toothpaste and chewable toothpaste tablet both have similar plaque removal efficiency. However, further comprehensive research is warranted to validate these results, as this study was conducted with a limited sample size. Introducing innovative oral care methods at a young age can foster a lifelong commitment to excellent oral hygiene, leading to improved overall health and well-being. How to cite this article: Desai SS, Reddy GR, Varma SA,
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.