MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224238597 · doi:10.1002/cre2.556

Plaque removal by a novel prototype power toothbrush versus a manual toothbrush: A randomized, exploratory clinical study

2022· article· en· W4224238597 on OpenAlexaff
Paola Gomez‐Pereira, Alyson Axe, Andrew Butler, Jimmy Qaqish, Chhaju Ram Goyal

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical and Experimental Dental Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicOral microbiology and periodontitis research
Canadian institutionsAll Sum Research Center (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsToothbrushMedicineDentistryDental plaqueGingival marginConfidence intervalOrthodonticsBrushInternal medicineMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: This exploratory study investigated plaque removal with a prototype constant, low rotation speed Power Toothbrush (PTB) with two brushing actions: "Gumline" (head rotates in the horizontal axis) and "Interdental" (head rotates in the vertical axis). Gumline alone and "Combined" (Gumline + Interdental) modes were compared with a Reference PTB and a Reference Manual Toothbrush (MTB) after one brushing. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Thirty-nine participants were randomized to use each toothbrush once either in the sequence (A) Prototype PTB (in Gumline then Combined mode), (B) reference MTB, and (C) reference PTB or the sequence BAC. There was a minimum 3-day washout between the use of each toothbrush. Plaque removal was measured using the Rustogi Modified Navy Dental Plaque Index (RMNPI) with change from baseline investigated using an analysis of covariance model. RMNPI scores were calculated on a "whole mouth" basis and along the gingival margin and at proximal sites only. RESULTS: For the primary efficacy variable, a significant difference was found in favor of the prototype PTB in gumline mode versus the reference MTB for whole mouth plaque score (difference: -0.06; standard error: 0.014; 95% confidence interval [CI] -0.09 to -0.04; p < .0001). Similar significant differences were found in gingival margin and proximal areas (p < .0001). The prototype PTB in gumline mode removed significantly less plaque than the prototype PTB in combined mode and the reference PTB (p < .0001; whole mouth/gingival/proximal areas). The prototype PTB in combined mode removed significantly more plaque than the reference MTB (p < .0001; whole mouth/gingival/proximal areas) and the reference PTB for whole mouth (p = .0214) and gingival margin areas (p = .0010). The reference PTB also removed significantly more plaque than the reference MTB (p < .0001; whole mouth/gingival/proximal areas). All brushes were generally well-tolerated. CONCLUSION: The prototype PTB design, providing two distinct cleaning modalities, can effectively remove plaque to a significantly higher degree than an MTB and a marketed PTB, depending on mode.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.152
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0000.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.180
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.328 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical and Experimental Dental ResearchSame topicOral microbiology and periodontitis researchFrench-language works237,207