Evaluation of the plaque removal efficacy of three power toothbrushes.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The objective of this randomized, single use, single blind, single center, 4-group parallel clinical study was to evaluate the plaque removal efficacy of three power toothbrushes and a manual toothbrush. METHODS: One hundred forty-four (144) subjects completed the study. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of four toothbrush groups: Sonicare Elite, Oral-B Sonic Complete, Waterpik Sensonic or Oral-B Indicator (manual). Subjects abstained from brushing 23-25 hours prior to the pre-brushing data collection. Pre-brushing scores were obtained using the Rustogi modified navy plaque index (RMNPI). Post-brushing RMNPI scores were obtained after a supervised uninstructed two-minute brushing with the assigned toothbrush. Scores were recorded for whole mouth, marginal region, and approximal region for each subject. RESULTS: Pre-brush comparability of whole mouth, marginal and approximal regions indicated no statistical differences among the four groups for any of the three measurement regions. All four toothbrushes showed statistically significant change from pre-brush to post-brush scores for whole mouth, marginal region, and approximal region. The Waterpik Sensonic provided significantly greater reduction in plaque as measured by the RMNPI compared to the other three brushes for whole mouth (89%), marginal area (81%) and approximal area (97%). The only exception was for adjusted p-values for the approximal area compared to the Oral-B Sonic Complete (p = 0.12). CONCLUSION: All groups demonstrated a significant reduction in plaque. The single use plaque removal efficacy of the Waterpik Sensonic toothbrush compared favorably to the other two power toothbrushes, the Sonicare Elite and the Oral-B Sonic Complete, and compared favorably to the manual toothbrush, the Oral-B Indicator.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".