ArticleOdontology2026
Effect of toothbrushing mode and brushing load on the wear of anterior tooth-shaped restorative composites.
Article in Odontology, 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This in vitro study evaluated the effects of approximately duration-normalized toothbrushing protocols and brushing load on volumetric wear and surface roughness changes of anterior tooth-shaped restorative composite specimens. One hundred twelve specimens were prepared from two highly filled flowable and two paste-type composites in a balanced 2 × 2 × 2 × 2 factorial design. After finishing, polishing, and 10,000 thermal cycles, seven specimens were mounted per manual-brushing run and brushed for 60,000 carriage strokes at 165 strokes/min (total run approximately 364 min; nominal exposure approximately 52 min/specimen), whereas electric brushing was applied for 52 min/specimen. Both protocols were intended to approximate one year of tooth-specific brushing duration but were not mechanically equivalent. Specimens were tested under 1.96-2.94 N. Volumetric loss was assessed using Primescan-based three-dimensional superimposition, and arithmetic mean roughness was measured before and after brushing. Factorial multivariate analysis of variance and follow-up univariate analyses were used. Toothbrushing protocol and load significantly affected the combined outcomes (Pillai trace = 0.926 and 0.827, respectively; both p < 0.001). Under the approximately duration-matched but mechanically different protocols, electric brushing produced greater roughness difference and volumetric loss, and higher load increased both outcomes. The protocol × load interaction was significant for volumetric loss (F = 89.33, p < 0.001). Composite category and trademark were not significant. The findings do not isolate an intrinsic manual-versus-electric drive-mechanism effect.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42830342What 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.