Plaque and gingivitis reduction efficacy of an advanced pulsonic toothbrush: a 4-week randomized and controlled clinical trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the safety and efficacy of a novel sonic power toothbrush and a manual toothbrush in the reduction of gingivitis and plaque over a 4-week period. METHODS: This study employed a randomized two treatment, examiner-blinded, parallel group design. Subjects with evidence of gingivitis were randomly assigned to 4 weeks' twice daily home use of either the Oral-B Pulsonic sonic toothbrush or an ADA reference manual toothbrush. At baseline (Visit 1) and again after product use at Week 4, subjects received gingivitis evaluations with the Modified Gingival Index (MGI) and Gingival Bleeding Index (GBI) examinations, followed by plaque assessment using the Rustogi Modified Navy Plaque Index (RMNPI). For 12 hours before both visits, subjects abstained from all oral hygiene, and ceased eating, drinking and smoking 4 hours prior. RESULTS: Both brushes significantly reduced gingivitis, gingival bleeding and plaque compared with baseline, and were well-tolerated by the 129 subjects completing the study. The sonic toothbrush was statistically significantly (P < 0.0001) more effective than the manual brush, with greater relative mean reductions in MGI, GBI and RMNPI of 11.9%, 62.3% and 46.5%, respectively.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".