Cited by 21Dental Health and Care UtilizationOral microbiology and periodontitis researchDental Research and COVID-19

Manual versus sonic powered toothbrushing in patients with intellectual disability: a cluster‐randomized clinical trial

García‐Carrillo, Ana, Jover, Antonio, Plá, Rafael, Martorell, Almudena, Sota, Cristina, Gómez‐Moreno, Gerardo, Figuero, Elena, Sanz, Mariano +1 more·2016·Journal of Clinical Periodontology

Abstract

Objectives: To compare the use of sonic powered or manual toothbrush in patients with intellectual disability ( ID ) in terms of plaque (PlI) and gingival ( GI ) indices and adverse effects. Material and Methods: Subjects with ID were recruited for this cluster‐randomized, single blinded (examiner), 6‐month clinical trial, comparing powered versus manual toothbrushing. Outcome variables included PlI and GI , evaluated at baseline and 3 months after supervised toothbrushing and after 3 additional months of unsupervised used. Clinical outcome variables were analysed by repeated measures ANCOVA considering time and group as factors and respective baseline values as covariates (generalized linear model). Results: Sixty‐four patients (34 male, mean age 34.5) in six clusters were included in the study. No statistically significant effect of toothbrushing group was observed for PlI or GI . A significant effect of time was identified ( p < 0.001) with mean reductions ranging 0.44–0.45 for PlI and 0.30–0.36 for GI from baseline to 3–6 months. No relevant adverse effect or technical problems were observed. Conclusion: The tested sonic powered toothbrush was as effective and safe as the manual toothbrush. The use of powered or manual toothbrushes, together with fluoride toothpaste, may improve plaque and gingivitis levels, in patients with mild to limit ID .

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jcpe.12567

Cites

26 of 26 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?

  • For patients with an intellectual disability, a randomized clinical trial found that use of a power toothbrush was as effective and safe as a manual toothbrush.

    “For patients with an intellectual disability, a randomized clinical trial found that the use of a power toothbrush was as effective and safe as a manual toothbrush.44”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
García‐Carrillo, A., Jover, A., Plá, R., Martorell, A., Sota, C., Gómez‐Moreno, G., Figuero, E., Sanz, M., & Herrera, D.
Affiliations
  • Universidad San Pablo CEU (ES)
  • Universidad Complutense de Madrid (ES)
  • Fundación A LA PAR (ES)
  • Section of Special Patients in Dentistry University of Granada Granada Spain
Corresponding author
Herrera, David
Venue
Journal of Clinical Periodontology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-05-20
Volume
43
Issue
8
Pages
684-693
ISSN
  • 0303-6979 (ISSN-L)
  • 1600-051X
OpenAlex
W2341683530
Cited by
21
References
26
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2017: 1
FWCI
2.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal Of Clinical Periodontology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Phillips Oral Healthcare
  • University Complutense
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Periodontics › Dental Health and Care Utilization
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Periodontics › Oral microbiology and periodontitis research
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › General Dentistry › Dental Research and COVID-19
Keywords
manual toothbrush, toothbrushing, intellectual disability, dental plaque, gingivitis, oral hygiene, fluoride toothpaste, supervised toothbrushing
MeSH terms
Adult, Dental Plaque, Dental Plaque Index, Equipment Design, Female, Gingivitis, Humans, Male, Intellectual Disability, Periodontal Index, Toothbrushing, Single-Blind Method

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