ArticleOdontology2026
Comparison of treatment time and patient-reported outcomes between erythritol powder air-polishing and rubber cup polishing: a randomized crossover clinical trial.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Professional mechanical plaque removal (PMPR) is essential for the prevention of dental caries and periodontal diseases. Erythritol powder air polishing (EPAP) has recently gained attention as an alternative to conventional rubber cup polishing (RC); however, evidence regarding patient-reported outcomes (PROs), particularly using the cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC)-containing erythritol formulation available in Japan, remains limited. This randomized, single-center, two-period crossover clinical trial compared EPAP with RC in systemically healthy adults. Twenty-one participants received both interventions in a randomized sequence with a washout period of at least two weeks. The primary outcome was treatment time, while secondary outcomes included pain during treatment, taste, oral freshness, taste disturbance, discomfort, and overall treatment preference. Data were analyzed using linear mixed-effects models accounting for treatment, period, and sequence effects. Baseline plaque scores were comparable between interventions. EPAP required significantly less treatment time than RC, with adjusted mean treatment times of 438 s and 759 s, respectively, corresponding to a reduction of approximately 323 s (P < 0.001). No significant period or sequence effects were observed. No significant differences were detected between EPAP and RC for pain, taste, oral freshness, taste disturbance, discomfort, or overall treatment preference. Eleven participants preferred RC and ten preferred EPAP, with no significant difference in preference (P = 1.000). Within the limitations of this study, EPAP significantly improved the efficiency of supragingival plaque removal without compromising patient-reported outcomes or treatment acceptance. These findings support the use of the CPC-containing erythritol powder air-polishing system as an efficient alternative to conventional rubber cup polishing for professional supragingival biofilm management.
Indexed as
Identifiers
42830345What 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.