Efficacy and safety of a new power toothbrush in a population with mild to moderate gingivitis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of a novel ultrasound power toothbrush over a 30-day period in a population with mild to moderate gingivitis. METHODOLOGY: A 30-day, randomized, examiner-blind, parallel-arm study was conducted to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a ultrasound novel power toothbrush (Ultreo - ULT) as compared to a control manual toothbrush (Oral-B 35-MTB). Fifty-three subjects (n = 26 ULT, n = 27 MTB) with a minimum of 18 natural teeth and a Löe and Silness Gingival Index of > or = 1.5 were enrolled. An intraoral examination (oral soft and hard tissues, restorations) was performed, and Löe and Silness Gingival Index scores were recorded at baseline and 30 days. Subjects were instructed to brush at home twice per day with their assigned toothbrush and study toothpaste. A product evaluation questionnaire was also completed at the 30-day study visit. RESULTS: Oral examinations indicated normal findings at all time points for both groups, and no adverse events were reported during the study. There were no significant differences in gingivitis scores at baseline between the toothbrush groups (p > 0.05). From baseline, each treatment group demonstrated a significant reduction in gingivitis over the 30-day period (p < 0.001). However, subjects in the ULT group demonstrated a significantly greater reduction in gingivitis compared to those using the manual toothbrush (p = 0.010). Results from the questionnaire, on average, indicated subjects in the ULT group scored their device higher with respect to the clean feeling after brushing and perceived improvements in gingival health. CONCLUSION: The novel Ultreo ultrasound power toothbrush significantly reduced gingivitis over the 30-day study, and resulted in a significantly greater reduction in gingivitis than a manual toothbrush. No adverse events or safety concerns were identified with either the power or manual 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".