Cited by 304Oral microbiology and periodontitis researchDental Health and Care UtilizationOral Health Pathology and Treatment

A systematic review of the effectiveness of self‐performed mechanical plaque removal in adults with gingivitis using a manual toothbrush

Van Der Weijden, G. A., Hioe, K. P. K.·2005·Journal of Clinical Periodontology

Abstract

Objective: To assess the effectiveness of self‐performed mechanical plaque removal in adults with gingivitis using a manual toothbrush with respect to the level of plaque and gingivitis in controlled studies of at least 6 months duration. Search: Medline‐PubMed up to and including September 2004. Results: Out of 3223 titles and abstracts, 33 trials were found for data extraction. A meta‐analysis was conducted of studies (n=9) in which, for the manual toothbrush group at baseline, only a professional prophylaxis provided. The weighted mean differences (WMD) between baseline and end‐trial for the Quigley & Hein plaque index was 0.28 and 0.21 for the Gingival Index (p<0.05). Eight studies provided both a professional OHI and prophylaxis at baseline. The WMD for the Silness & Löe Plaque Index was 0.10 (ns). The WMD of the proportion of bleeding sites was 5.84% (p<0.05). Conclusion: In adults with gingivitis the quality of self‐performed mechanical plaque removal is not sufficiently effective and should be improved. Based on studies 6 months of duration, it appears that a single oral hygiene instruction, describing the use of a mechanical toothbrush, in addition to a single professional ‘oral prophylaxis’ provided at baseline, had a significant, albeit small, positive effect on the reduction of gingivitis.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1600-051x.2005.00795.x

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In adults with gingivitis, quality of self-performed mechanical plaque removal is not always completely effective and could be improved.

    “Besides the observation that good oral hygiene is correlated with stable oral conditions, it has been demonstrated that in adults with gingivitis the quality of self-performed mechanical plaque removal is not always completely effective and could be improved.10”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Van Der Weijden, G. A., & Hioe, K. P. K.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Periodontology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-08-26
Volume
32
Issue
s6
Pages
214-228
ISSN
  • 0303-6979 (ISSN-L)
  • 1600-051X
OpenAlex
W2116488051
Cited by
304
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 18 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 17 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 21
FWCI
0.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal Of Clinical Periodontology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (publishedVersion)
  • VU Research Portal (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Periodontics › Oral microbiology and periodontitis research
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Periodontics › Dental Health and Care Utilization
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Periodontics › Oral Health Pathology and Treatment
Keywords
gingivitis, manual toothbrush, mechanical plaque removal, dental hygiene education, professional prophylaxis, dental plaque, gingival bleeding, oral hygiene
MeSH terms
Adult, Clinical Trials as Topic, Dental Devices, Home Care, Dental Plaque, Dental Plaque Index, Gingivitis, Humans, Periodontal Index, Toothbrushing

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review