ArticleBMC oral health2026
Bilateral interdental cleaning after powered toothbrushing: an in vitro comparison of interdental brushes and elastomeric interdental picks.
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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPlaque removal in interdental areas (IDR) remains limited when using powered toothbrushing (PT) alone. Although adjunctive interdental cleaning is widely recommended, quantitative data on the incremental benefit of bilateral interdental application are limited. This in vitro study evaluated cleaning potential following sequential interdental cleaning after PT and compared the bilateral incremental effect between interdental brushes (IDB) and elastomeric interdental picks (IDP).
methodsA validated in vitro model (verified for reproducibility and standardised quantitative ECE measurement under controlled in vitro conditions) using a standardised artificial biofilm model to quantify interdental experimental cleaning efficacy (ECE, %). Replicated IDRs of different morphologies and sizes simulating open posterior IDR with reduced papillary support were cleaned sequentially using PT alone, PT followed by one-sided interdental application, and PT followed by bilateral interdental application. The primary outcome was the total incremental cleaning effect after PT (ΔECE2). The additional benefit of second-side application (ΔECE3) was analysed as endpoint. Data were analysed using non-parametric tests with Bonferroni correction.
resultsPT alone resulted in low interdental cleaning efficacy (IDB/ IDP series: 7.5 ± 2.7%/ 10.2 ± 4.1%; p < 0.001). Following bilateral interdental cleaning, overall ECE increased to 81.2 ± 18.3% for IDB (IDP: 54.7 ± 17.6%; p < 0.001). The total incremental effect after PT was significantly greater for IDB (ΔECE2 73.7 ± 17.8%) than for IDP (44.5 ± 20.6%; p < 0.001). In contrast, the additional benefit of second-side application was greater for IDP vs. IDB (ΔECE3: 21.4 ± 14.1% vs. 9.5 ± 12.2%; p < 0.001). The superiority of IDB in total cleaning efficacy was consistent across IDR morphologies and sizes.
conclusionsWithin the limitations of this in vitro study, PT alone was insufficient for effective cleaning of simulated open posterior interdental areas with reduced papillary support. Cylindric IDBs demonstrated superior overall performance across all tested conditions, while conical IDPs derived a comparatively greater relative benefit from bilateral access.
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.