The effect of two power toothbrushes on calculus and stain formation.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the safety and efficacy with respect to the control of calculus and stain of two power toothbrushes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a cross-over study involving a total of 81 subjects from a general population who used, in a randomized sequence, the Braun Oral-B 3D Excel (D17) and the Sonicare toothbrush with a conventional dentifrice, and a manual brush with a tartar control dentifrice. The manual toothbrush with tartar control dentifrice served as a positive control with respect to control of calculus. Following 9 weeks of manual brush use with a conventional, non-abrasive dentifrice, each test brush was used for a period of 9 weeks, after which subjects switched to the next brush in the sequence. Calculus was scored using the Volpe-Manhold Calculus Index and stain using the Lobene Stain Index. RESULTS: All three brushes were found to be safe as used in the study. All three toothbrushes significantly reduced the levels of calculus as compared to the control period. Reduction from baseline in the rate of calculus formation was greatest in the D17 group (63%), followed by the manual brush with tartar control dentifrice (60%) and Sonicare (44%). Both the D17 and the manual brush were significantly more effective than Sonicare (P< 0.001). The D17 was also more effective at controlling stain formation than either Sonicare or the manual brush with tartar control dentifrice at the gingival margin, the difference from Sonicare being statistically significant for all analyses (P< 0.0001). It is concluded that the D17 is significantly more effective in reducing both the rate of calculus and stain formation than the Sonicare toothbrush.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".