A 4-week clinical comparison of a novel multi-directional power brush to a manual toothbrush in the reduction of gingivitis and plaque.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of a novel multi-directional power toothbrush in reducing plaque and gingivitis relative to a standard manual toothbrush control. METHODS: This 4-week, randomized and controlled, single-center, parallel group, examiner-blinded clinical study enrolled adults with mild-to-moderate gingivitis. At baseline, pre-treatment gingivitis and plaque levels were assessed via the Lobene Modified Gingival Index (MGI), the Gingival Bleeding Index (GBI), and the Rustogi Modified Navy Plaque Index (RMNPI). Subjects qualifying were assigned randomly to one of two toothbrush groups: a novel multi-directional power toothbrush (Oral-B Professional Deep Sweep TRICLEAN 1000, also marketed as Oral-B TriZone) or a standard soft manual control toothbrush. Aside from a supervised brushing at baseline on-site, subjects brushed at home twice daily with their assigned test brush. After 1 week, subjects returned for RMNPI plaque evaluations. At Week 4, subjects were again recalled to evaluate toothbrush efficacy, and received MGI and GBI gingivitis and RMNPI plaque evaluations. RESULTS: 119 evaluable subjects completed the study. Both the novel power and manual control toothbrushes yielded statistically significant (P < 0.001) mean plaque reductions compared to baseline at Weeks 1 and 4 (except Week 1 manual brush gingival margin) and significant mean MGI and GBI gingivitis reductions (P < 0.001). Comparing the relative effectiveness of the test brushes, the novel multi-directional power brush produced significantly superior anti-gingivitis and anti-plaque reductions compared to pre-treatment relative to the manual control brush in every analysis at both time points. The Week 4 adjusted mean relative reductions favoring the multi-directional power brush were 3 and 1.49 times greater for whole mouth MGI and GBI, respectively (P < 0.001); and were 2.1, 4.7 and 2 times greater for the RMNPI whole mouth, gingival margin and interproximal regions, respectively (P < 0.001). 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 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".