SynthesisFrontiers in oral health2026
Biodegradable vs. conventional toothbrushes for biofilm control: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.
Synthesis in Frontiers in 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Due to the immense environmental impact of plastic waste, there has been a significant increase in interest for both biodegradable and natural toothbrushes (BT) as sustainable forms of daily oral care. This includes bamboo toothbrushes, as well as plant-based products (i.e., miswak). As such, these two types of products can be considered similar because they are both renewable and biodegradable in nature. However, their effectiveness when compared to traditional plastic toothbrushes at controlling dental biofilm has not been fully established. Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of biodegradable and natural oral hygiene tools compared with conventional plastic toothbrushes for controlling dental plaque in children and adults. Methods: This systematic review/meta-analysis was reported according to PRISMA guidelines, and its protocol was registered in PROSPERO. All databases were searched using electronic methods from their inception to December 2025: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Embase. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examined biodegradable/natural oral hygiene products compared to conventional plastic toothbrushes and that had plaque index (PI) as outcome were included. The analyses used random effects model, and certainty of evidence was evaluated using GRADE methodology. Results: Five RCTs ( Conclusions: Biodegradable and natural oral hygiene products may result in little to no difference in plaque control compared with conventional plastic toothbrushes; however, confidence in this estimate was very low. Well-designed, adequately powered RCTs are required to reduce uncertainty and inform evidence-based clinical and sustainability-related recommendations. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251273997, PROSPERO CRD420251273997.
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.