Gingival health effects with an oscillating-rotating electric toothbrush with micro-vibrations and a novel brush head designed for stain control: Results from a 12-week randomized controlled trial.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the reduction of plaque and gingivitis by an oscillating-rotating (O-R) smart-connected electric rechargeable toothbrush with micro-vibrations used with a novel brush head designed for stain control versus a manual toothbrush. METHODS: 100 adult subjects with evidence of gingivitis and plaque were enrolled in this single-center, examiner-blind, two-treatment, parallel-group, controlled trial. Subjects were randomized to either the O-R toothbrush used in whitening mode (Oral-B iO with Radiant White brush head) or the manual toothbrush (Oral-B Indicator). Subjects brushed twice daily with their assigned toothbrush and a standard sodium fluoride dentifrice. At baseline, week 1, and week 12, gingivitis was assessed with the Modified Gingival Index (MGI) and the Gingival Bleeding Index (GBI), and plaque was assessed with the Rustogi Modification of the Navy Plaque Index (RMNPI). Gingival case status was classified as " healthy" (< 10% bleeding sites) or "not healthy" (≤ 10% bleeding sites) according to the standard of the American Academy of Periodontology and the European Federation of Periodontology. RESULTS: All 100 subjects who were randomized to treatment completed the study. At baseline, the gingival case status for all subjects was classified as "not healthy". By week 12, 86% of subjects in the O-R brush group had transitioned to a " healthy" case status, in contrast to 20% of subjects in the manual toothbrush group (P< 0.001). The reduction in the adjusted mean number of bleeding sites from baseline was greater for the O-R brush group than for the manual brush group [at week 12, by 24.5 (74.6%) vs. by 7.8 (23.7%), respectively; P< 0.001]. Reductions for adjusted mean MGI and GBI scores were likewise statistically significantly greater for the O-R brush group relative to those of the manual brush group (P< 0.001). The O-R brush also provided greater relative reductions in adjusted mean whole mouth, gingival margin and approximal RMNPI scores at week 12 (P< 0.001), and plaque was similarly reduced in the lingual and buccal subregions (P< 0.001). Significant between-group plaque reductions favoring the O-R brush were observed for all regions as early as first use (P< 0.001). CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The results of this 12-week study support the recommendation of the O-R toothbrush with micro-vibrations, used in whitening mode with a novel brush head designed for stain control, so patients motivated by esthetic desires can personalize their brushing experience without compromising cleaning and gingival health efficacy.
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) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".