Efficacy of Oral Hygiene Aids in Gingivitis Management: A Comparative Study of Manual and Electric Toothbrushes, Dental Floss, and Mouthwash
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A BSTRACT Background: Gingivitis is a prevalent oral health issue characterized by inflammation of the gums, often resulting from inadequate plaque removal. Materials and Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted with 120 participants diagnosed with gingivitis, aged 18 to 65 years. Participants were divided into four groups: Group A used a manual toothbrush, Group B used an electric toothbrush, Group C used dental floss in addition to manual brushing, and Group D used mouthwash in addition to manual brushing. The study duration was eight weeks, with gingival index (GI) scores recorded at baseline, four weeks, and eight weeks. Plaque index (PI) and bleeding on probing (BOP) were also assessed as secondary outcomes. Results: At the end of eight weeks, Group B (electric toothbrush) showed the most significant reduction in gingival index scores (mean reduction: 1.2, P < 0.01), followed by Group D (mouthwash) with a mean reduction of 1.0 ( P < 0.05). Group C (dental floss) exhibited a moderate reduction (mean reduction: 0.8, P < 0.05), while Group A (manual toothbrush) had the least improvement (mean reduction: 0.5, P = 0.08). Plaque index and bleeding on probing results followed a similar trend, with the electric toothbrush group demonstrating superior outcomes. Conclusion: The study concludes that electric toothbrushes are more effective in managing gingivitis compared to manual toothbrushes, dental floss, and mouthwash.
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 | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".