A randomized 12-week study to compare the gingivitis and plaque reduction benefits of a rotation-oscillation power toothbrush and a sonic power toothbrush.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Sonic and rotation-oscillation power toothbrushes are popular and effective, but have been shown to differ in relative benefits. The objective of this 12-week investigation was to compare the efficacy of a rotation-oscillation powered toothbrush and a newly introduced sonic toothbrush in the reduction of gingivitis and dental plaque. METHODS: This was a randomized, controlled, examiner-blind, two-treatment, parallel-group study to assess gingivitis reduction and plaque reductions after twice-daily brushing with either the rotation-oscillation brush or the sonic toothbrush over 12 weeks. The Modified Gingival Index (MGI) and Gingival Bleeding Index (GBI) were used to determine gingivitis benefits at Week 6 and Week 12, and plaque was scored at these visits before and after supervised brushing using the Rustogi Modified Navy Plaque Index (RMNPI). RESULTS: In 171 evaluable subjects, gingivitis reduction benefits were significantly greater for the rotation-oscillation brush group than for those using the sonic toothbrush, with relative mean benefits favoring the rotation-oscillation brush of 29.4% for GBI and 8.2% for MGI at 12 weeks (p < or = 0.01). The rotation-oscillation brush produced significantly lower RMNPI plaque by 33.3% compared to the sonic toothbrush (p < 0.001) at Week 12. CONCLUSION: The rotation-oscillation power toothbrush was significantly more efficacious than the sonic toothbrush in removing plaque, in reducing gingivitis, and lowering the number of bleeding sites after 12 weeks of twice-daily brushing.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".