Effectiveness of Different Methods of Interdental Hygiene in Daily Practice Among Young Adults: Protocol for a Randomized, Single-Blind Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Interdental spaces are particularly susceptible to biofilm accumulation and gingival inflammation, which contribute to periodontal diseases and their systemic associations. While interdental brushes (IDBs) are recognized as the most effective method of interdental cleaning, their efficacy depends on proper adaptation to the interdental space. Calibration with a colorimetric probe may enhance their effectiveness and comfort. However, evidence directly comparing calibrated and noncalibrated IDBs, especially in young adults, a key target group for preventive strategies, remains limited. The Hygiene of Interdental Junctions in Adults (HIJA) trial was designed to address this gap. Objective: This protocol aims to compare the clinical, microbiological, and acceptability outcomes associated with calibrated versus noncalibrated IDBs in young adults, focusing on interdental inflammation, periodontal indices, and microbiota composition. Methods: The HIJA trial is a monocentric, randomized, controlled, single-blind, and parallel-arm study. Overall, 50 healthy, nonsmoking adults aged 18-30 years will be randomized (1:1) to receive either calibrated or noncalibrated IDBs. Participants will perform daily interdental cleaning in addition to conventional toothbrushing for 3 months. The primary outcome will be the reduction in interdental inflammation, expressed as the change in bleeding on probing at 3 months. Secondary outcomes will assess differences in interdental microbiota composition (16S ribosomal RNA sequencing), periodontal indices (plaque index, gingival index, probing depth, and clinical attachment loss), and user acceptability measured through the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability questionnaire at 1, 2, and 3 months. Results: The HIJA trial will generate evidence on whether calibrated IDBs provide additional benefits over noncalibrated brushes in reducing interdental inflammation and improving oral health in young adults. Conclusions: HIJA findings could contribute to the implementation of clinical guidelines and preventive strategies for interdental hygiene in daily practice.
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 | 0.026 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.051 | 0.008 |
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".