Effectiveness of electric toothbrush as vibration method on orthodontic tooth movement: a split-mouth study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of application of vibratory stimuli, using an electric toothbrush, on the rate of orthodontic tooth movement during maxillary canine retraction. METHODS: A split-mouth study was conducted in 28 subjects (mean age = 20.8 years; ranging from 18 to 24 years) whose bilateral maxillary first premolars were extracted with subsequent canine retraction. On the Vibration side, light force (100 g) was applied to the canine for 90 days, in combination with vibratory stimuli provided by an electric toothbrush; only orthodontic force was applied to the canine on the non-vibration side. Amount of canine movement was measured monthly. Related to electronic toothbrush usage, a diary was provided to each patient for recording discomfort during experimental period, having 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS). The paired t-test was used to assess the differences in amount of tooth movement between canines of the vibration and non-vibration sides. RESULTS: The amount of tooth movement was similar for canines on the vibration side and on the non-vibration side (mean 0.81 ± 0.10 mm and 0.82 ± 0.11 mm, respectively, p> 0.05). Plaque accumulation was minimal in any subject throughout the study. No subject reported discomfort as a result of using the electric toothbrush. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates that application of vibratory stimuli using an electric toothbrush, in combination with light orthodontic force, do not accelerate orthodontic tooth movement.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".