A comparison of the Braun Oral-B 3D plaque remover and the Sonicare plus electric toothbrush in removing naturally occurring extrinsic staining.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the extrinsic stain-removing properties and the safety of the Braun Oral-B 3D Plaque Remover and the Sonicare Plus electric toothbrush. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This randomized, parallel group, investigator-blinded study involved 67 subjects and was conducted over 6 weeks. After recruitment, the subjects received a baseline stain assessment (Lobene stain index) and a soft and hard tissue examination, and were then randomized to use either the Sonicare or the 3D device. All subjects were trained to use both devices, and instructed to brush twice daily with their assigned device for 2 min. The subjects' brushing technique was checked after 2 weeks. After a further 4 weeks, the subjects underwent a final stain assessment and soft and hard tissue examination. A questionnaire was also completed. RESULTS: At 6 weeks, oral hard and soft tissue examinations revealed no abrasion or damage in either group. Both brushes produced significant (P < 0.001) reductions from baseline in total stain score, stain area and intensity, but group comparisons showed that these reductions were significantly (P < 0.001) greater for the 3D device.
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) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".