An 8-Week Clinical Comparison of an Oscillating-Rotating Electric Rechargeable Toothbrush and a Sonic Toothbrush in the Reduction of Gingivitis and Plaque.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate and compare the efficacy of a marketed oscillating-rotating electric rechargeable toothbrush to a marketed sonic toothbrush in the reduction of gingivitis and plaque over an 8-week period. METHODS: This was a randomized, examiner-blind, parallel group, eight-week study. Subjects with presence of mild-to-moderate plaque and gingivitis received an oral examination and were evaluated for baseline gingivitis (Modified Gingival Index; MGI), gingival bleeding (Gingival Bleeding Index; GBI), and plaque (Rustogi Modified Navy Plaque Index). Qualified subjects were randomly assigned to an entry-level oscillating-rotating electric rechargeable brush handle (Oral-B® PRO 1000, D16U) with a round brush head with angled bristles (Oral-B® CrossAction, EB50) or a premium sonic brush (Philips Sonicare® Diamond Clean Toothbrush with AdaptiveClean brush head). One hundred and fifty subjects were instructed to brush twice daily with their assigned brush and a fluoride dentifrice for eight weeks before returning for an oral examination and gingivitis and plaque evaluations. The same methods were used at baseline and Week 8 for all evaluations. RESULTS: One hundred and forty-eight subjects completed the study, 74 in each group. After eight weeks of use, both brushes reduced MGI, GBI, total number of bleeding sites, whole mouth plaque, gingival margin plaque, and proximal plaque (p < 0.001 for each). The oscillating-rotating brush provided statistically significantly greater reductions than the sonic brush for all gingivitis measures, with a 34.8%, 48.4%, and 42.6% greater reduction for MGI, GBI, and number of bleeding sites, respectively, after eight weeks of use (p < 0.001 for each). Significantly greater whole mouth (26.2%) and proximal (38.5%) plaque reductions were also demonstrated at Week 8 for the oscillating-rotating brush versus the sonic brush (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The entry-level oscillating-rotating brush performed better than the premium sonic brush in the reduction of plaque and gingivitis in this eight-week randomized and examiner-blind study.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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".