MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4407987636

A randomized controlled trial evaluating a novel oscillating-rotating electric toothbrush versus a sonic toothbrush for plaque and gingivitis.

2025· article· en· W4407987636 on OpenAlexaff
Ralf Adam, Julie Grender, Hans Timm, Jimmy Qaqish, C Ram Goyal

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicOral microbiology and periodontitis research
Canadian institutionsAll Sum Research Center (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsToothbrushGingivitisDentistryMedicineDental plaqueRandomized controlled trialOrthodonticsMaterials scienceBrushComposite materialSurgery
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To assess the relative efficacy of a new entry-tier oscillating-rotating (OR) electric toothbrush versus a sonic electric toothbrush over 4 weeks of use for plaque and gingivitis reduction. METHODS: This single-center, examiner-blind, two-treatment, parallel-group, randomized clinical study enrolled adult participants who had evidence of gingivitis and plaque at baseline. Participants were randomly assigned to use either an entry-tier OR toothbrush (Oral-B iO2) with the Ultimate Clean brush head in Daily Clean mode or an advanced sonic toothbrush (usmile Marble-Art) used with the usmile Advanced Whitening brush head in Clean mode (and at the high-intensity level). Both groups brushed with a standard sodium fluoride dentifrice. Participants were assessed for gingivitis (Modified Gingival Index and the Gingival Bleeding Index) and plaque (Rustogi Modification of the Navy Plaque Index) at baseline and after 4 weeks of twice-daily use. Plaque was also assessed after a single use at baseline. RESULTS: Both toothbrushes statistically significantly reduced gingivitis after 4 weeks of use and plaque after a single use and after 4 weeks (P< 0.001 for all). The OR toothbrush, relative to the sonic toothbrush, demonstrated a statistically significantly greater reduction in Modified Gingival Index score and number of bleeding sites (P< 0.001) and was associated with a significantly greater number of users transitioning from gingivitis to a state of gingival health (i.e., < 10% bleeding sites; P= 0.038) by the end of the study. The OR toothbrush likewise demonstrated greater efficacy with respect to plaque reduction after a single use (whole mouth, interproximal, and gingival margin; P< 0.001 for all) and after 4 weeks of use (whole mouth and interproximal; P< 0.001 for both). CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The novel entry-tier OR toothbrush offers significantly greater plaque control and gingivitis reduction relative to the advanced sonic toothbrush model.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.295 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMed→Same topicOral microbiology and periodontitis research→French-language works237,207→