ArticleClinical oral investigations2026
Partial-mouth plaque recording revisited: evaluation of tooth- and surface-based subsets using a data-driven benchmark.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the validity of established and newly developed partial-mouth recording subsets for approximating full-mouth plaque across different plaque metrics and oral hygiene states, and to determine whether surface-based subsets derived from the observed plaque distribution offer advantages over established recording schemes. MATERIALS AND
methodsDisclosed-plaque intraoral scans from 30 adults (24.0 ± 4.1 years) were obtained at baseline, after 72 h plaque accumulation, and after toothbrushing. Plaque was quantified planimetrically (percentage plaque coverage, P%) and using two plaque indices (Turesky modified Quigley-Hein Plaque Index (TQHPI); Rustogi modified Navy Plaque Index (RMNPI)). Established Ramfjord (6 teeth/12 surfaces) and Community-Periodontal-Index-of-Treatment-Needs (CPITN; 6 teeth/12 surfaces or 10 teeth/20 surfaces) subsets, optimised subsets derived from the observed plaque distribution to represent overall plaque levels, and additional subsets representing plaque-prone sites with elevated plaque levels were compared with full-mouth recordings. Performance was assessed using bias, root-mean-square error, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC), and mixed-effects modelling.
resultsAn Optimised-12 surface subset showed near-perfect agreement with P% full-mouth recordings (bias 0.03, ICC 0.962); the 12-surface CPITN revealed similar results (bias -0.07, ICC 0.967). The Ramfjord subset showed slight underestimation but high agreement (bias -1.23, ICC 0.970), whereas the 20-surface CPITN consistently overestimated full-mouth plaque (bias 4.33, ICC 0.839). A reduced 6-surface Ramfjord subset also preserved high agreement with full-mouth recordings (bias -0.76, ICC 0.954). For surfaces with elevated plaque levels, newly developed 12- and 6-surface subsets closely matched the elevated-plaque reference. Subset performance patterns were consistent across all oral hygiene stages and across plaque metrics (P%, TQHPI, RMNPI).
conclusionsExcept for the 20-surface CPITN, all subsets provided a robust approximation of full-mouth plaque. Surface-based subsets derived from the observed plaque distribution offer accurate alternatives for assessing overall plaque, while the elevated-plaque subsets provided a useful approach for monitoring plaque-prone sites. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: Time-efficient partial-mouth recording may support feasible plaque monitoring in clinical research and preventive care, particularly when full-mouth assessment is impractical.
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.