Safety and plaque removal efficacy of a battery-operated power toothbrush and a manual toothbrush.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the safety and plaque removal efficacy of a battery-operated power toothbrush and a reference adult manual toothbrush. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a single-blind, randomized, split-mouth study. The power toothbrush studied was the Braun Oral-B Battery toothbrush (D4) and this was compared with a standard reference ADA manual toothbrush. The D4 toothbrush is derived from the Plaque Remover range of toothbrushes and has an oscillating/rotating action. At an initial visit, subjects (n = 48) were given a baseline examination of the oral hard and soft tissues and were instructed in the use of the D4. After one week during which subjects used the D4 at home, they returned to the test facility having abstained from oral hygiene for 23-25 hours. Two contralateral quadrants of the mouth were then randomly assigned to be cleaned with each toothbrush. Plaque assessments and hard and soft tissue examinations were made before and after brushing each quadrant for 15 seconds. Plaque was evaluated using the Rustogi modification of the Navy Plaque Index. RESULTS: Plaque levels were significantly reduced for all sites, marginal sites and approximal sites by both toothbrushes (P < 0.0001), but the efficacy of the D4 was significantly greater than that of the ADA manual brush for all comparisons (P < 0.0001). The greatest difference between the two toothbrushes was at approximal sites where the D4 removed 19% more plaque than the manual toothbrush. For all sites, the D4 was 14% more effective, while at marginal sites the difference in favor of the D4 was 12%.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".