A 3-month comparative investigation of the safety and efficacy of a new toothbrush: results from two independent clinical studies.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the efficacy of a new toothbrush featuring a novel brush head design with those of two established toothbrushes by measuring plaque and gingivitis over a period of 12 weeks. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The Oral-B CrossAction toothbrush was compared with the Dr. Best InterDent and Crest DeepSweep toothbrushes in two independent, parallel-group, examiner-blind clinical studies. Each study involved approximately 100 healthy individuals from a general population. At baseline, after 23-25 hrs of no oral hygiene, oral hard and soft tissues were examined and whole mouth, marginal and approximal plaque scores and whole mouth gingivitis scores were recorded. Subjects in the two studies were asked to use their assigned toothbrush twice a day. No instruction in brushing technique or brushing time was given. After a period of 6 weeks and finally after 12 weeks, subjects in the studies were reassessed for oral tissue status, and their plaque and gingival indices were rescored. RESULTS: In each of the two studies, the tested toothbrushes significantly reduced levels of plaque and gingivitis. The CrossAction toothbrush was, however, more effective in reducing both plaque and gingivitis over 12 weeks, the differences in favor of the CrossAction being statistically significant. All the toothbrushes tested in this investigation were found to be safe with no evidence of hard or soft tissue trauma.
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 | 0.012 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".