A 6-month randomized controlled trial evaluating a novel smart-connected oscillating-rotating toothbrush versus a smart-connected sonic toothbrush for the reduction of plaque and gingivitis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This 6-month study compared the effects of a smart-connected oscillating-rotating (O-R) electric rechargeable toothbrush with micro-vibrations with those of a marketed smart-connected sonic rechargeable toothbrush for the reduction of gingivitis and plaque. METHODS: In this single-center, examiner-blind, two-treatment, open-label, parallel-group, randomized study, 110 adult subjects with evidence of gingivitis and plaque were randomized to use either the O-R brush (Oral-B iO) or the sonic brush (Philips Sonicare DiamondClean). Both groups were instructed to brush twice daily with a standard sodium fluoride dentifrice. Gingivitis and plaque were assessed at baseline, week 1, and week 24 using the Modified Gingival Index (MGI), Gingival Bleeding Index (GBI), and the Rustogi Modification of the Navy Plaque Index (RMNPI). Designation of gingivitis case status as "healthy" or " not healthy" was made according to the World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri-Implant Diseases and Conditions. RESULTS: A significantly greater percentage of subjects in the O-R brush group versus the sonic brush group transitioned from " not healthy" to " healthy" gingivitis case status at week 24 (96.4% vs. 81.8%; P= 0.029). The O-R toothbrush produced a significantly greater reduction in adjusted mean MGI score, adjusted mean GBI score, and adjusted mean number of bleeding sites than did the sonic brush (week 24, by 32.6% for MGI score, by 23.7% for GBI score, and by 26.1% for number of bleeding sites, P< 0.001). After a single use on day 1, plaque removal was statistically significantly greater for the O-R brush compared to the sonic brush (P< 0.001); by week 24, the O-R brush demonstrated greater reductions in whole mouth plaque (24.6%), gingival margin plaque (61.9%) and approximal region plaque 25.8% (P≤ 0.007 for all) compared to the sonic brush. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This 6-month study provides evidence supporting use of a smart-connected O-R electric toothbrush with micro-vibrations for plaque removal and gingivitis reductions, resulting in transitions to a healthy gingival state.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".