Evaluation of a new multi-directional power toothbrush versus a marketed sonic toothbrush on plaque and gingivitis efficacy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the plaque- and gingivitis-reducing efficacy of a newly developed multi-directional power toothbrush in comparison to a commercially-available sonic power toothbrush. METHODS: Adult subjects with mild-to-moderate gingivitis were eligible for this 4-week, randomized and controlled, single-center, examiner-blinded, parallel group study. At baseline, plaque and gingivitis status was assessed with the Rustogi Modified Navy Plaque Index (RMNPI), Lobene Modified Gingival Index (MGI), and Gingival Bleeding Index (GBI). Subjects meeting all eligibility criteria were randomly assigned to one of two power toothbrushes: a novel multi-directional power toothbrush (Oral-B Professional Deep Sweep TRICLEAN 1000 also marketed as Oral-B TriZone) or the marketed sonic control toothbrush (Philips Sonicare Essence 5500). A single supervised brushing occurred onsite at baseline; thereafter toothbrushing was conducted twice daily at home in accordance with manufacturer instructions using the assigned power brush. At 4 weeks post-baseline, subjects returned for MGI, GBI, and RMNPI evaluations to determine the plaque and gingivitis efficacy of the respective brushes. RESULTS: All 130 subjects completing the trial were evaluable. Both the novel multi-directional power and sonic control brushes produced significant mean reductions in gingivitis, gingival bleeding and plaque (whole mouth and region-specific) at Week 4 in comparison to baseline (P < 0.001). The new multi-directional power brush performed statistically significantly better (P < or = 0.001) in all efficacy measures after 4 weeks ofbrushing, providing superior adjusted mean relative reduction benefits versus the sonic control brush of 48% for MGI, 52% for GBI, 26% for whole mouth RMNPI, 58% for gingival margin RMNPI plaque, and 33% for interproximal (approximal) RMNPI plaque. Both toothbrushes were well-tolerated.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".