An advanced toothbrush with improved plaque removal efficacy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the plaque removal efficacy and safety of a new advanced manual toothbrush, the Oral-B CrossAction, with seven other toothbrushes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Seven independent, cross-over design clinical studies were conducted using the same examiner who was blind to the identity of the test products and treatment assignments. In each study, approximately 75 healthy adult subjects from a general population brushed with their randomly assigned toothbrush (CrossAction or comparison brush) at Visit 1 for 1 min without supervision or instruction in brushing technique. Subjects returned after a 1-week washout period and brushed with the alternate toothbrush (Visit 2). Plaque was evaluated before and after brushing using the Rustogi Modified Navy Plaque Index. Statistical analyses were conducted by an independent statistician who remained blind to the identity of all test products. RESULTS: Each of the toothbrushes tested provided significant (P < or = 0.0001) reductions in plaque scores after a single brushing. In each of the studies, the CrossAction toothbrush removed significantly (P < or = 0.0001) greater amounts of whole mouth, gingival margin, and approximal plaque than the compared toothbrush. All toothbrushes were found to be safe, with no changes in oral tissues or restorations observed over the course of each study. The results from these studies were consistent, demonstrating that the CrossAction toothbrush significantly enhances the ability of subjects to remove more plaque during normal brushing compared to seven other toothbrushes.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".