Comparative Plaque Removal Efficacy of Three Manual Toothbrushes.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to determine the safety and plaque-reducing effectiveness of a newly designed manual toothbrush compared to that of a leading marketed toothbrush and a reference standard manual toothbrush control. METHODS: This examiner-blind, randomized, single-use study used a cross-over design. Sixty-eight qualifying male and female subjects were randomly assigned either an Arm & Hammer™ Truly Radiant™ Deep Clean manual toothbrush (TR), a Colgate® Extra Clean manual toothbrush (C), or an ADA reference standard manual toothbrush (SM) according to one of three computer-generated sequences. Following instruction in the use of their assigned brush, subjects brushed at home with a standard fluoride toothpaste twice daily for two minutes during a one-week familiarization period. At the end of this period, the subjects returned to the study site after refraining from oral hygiene for 12-16 hours and from eating and drinking for four hours. Plaque was disclosed and scored using the Rustogi Modification of the Navy Plaque Index (RMNPI). Subjects brushed under supervision with their assigned toothbrush for two minutes in a room without mirrors and apart from the dental examiner, after which plaque was disclosed and rescored. They were then given one of the alternate toothbrushes according to their assigned sequence, and the familiarization routine and evaluations were repeated until each of the subjects used each of the three brushes. Within-treatment and between-treatment whole mouth RMNPI scores and scores at each of twelve subsets of sites were analyzed using paired t-tests and appropriate ANCOVA models, respectively. RESULTS: Within-group analyses showed that all three toothbrushes produced statistically significant reductions from the pre-brushing baseline in whole mouth RMNPI scores (p < 0.0001), with respective reductions of 68.2%, 58.3%, and 48.5% for TR, C, and SM. Between-group analyses showed that TR was significantly more effective (p < 0.0001) than C and SM with 16.4% and 40.3% greater reductions in whole mouth scores, respectively. TR also produced statistically significant greater reductions (p < 0.0001) than the other two manual brushes at each of the twelve subsets of sites examined, with the greatest differences at the lingual and gingival sites, especially sites presenting difficulty in access, such as those in the posterior lingual gingival region. CONCLUSIONS: While all three manual toothbrushes produced significant supragingival plaque reductions with a single use, the Truly Radiant Deep Clean brush was significantly more effective than the Colgate Extra Clean and ADA manual brushes in reducing wholemouth plaque, as well as plaque at all subsets of sites analyzed including difficult-to-reach areas.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».