Cited by 1,020Oral microbiology and periodontitis researchDental Health and Care UtilizationScientific and Engineering Research Topics

Comparative cleansing efficiency of manual and power brushing

Quigley, Gertrude A., Hein, John W.·1962·The Journal of the American Dental Association

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.14219/jada.archive.1962.0184

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Quigley, G. A., & Hein, J. W.
Affiliations
Tufts University (US)
Venue
The Journal of the American Dental Association
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
1962-07
Volume
65
Issue
1
Pages
26-29
ISSN
0002-8177 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2066742923
Cited by
1,020
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 25 · 2025: 31 · 2024: 31 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 28 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 36 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 29 · 2016: 33 · 2015: 32 · 2014: 43 · 2013: 39 · 2012: 41
FWCI
9.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Journal of the American Dental Association (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Periodontics › Oral microbiology and periodontitis research
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Periodontics › Dental Health and Care Utilization
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Periodontics › Scientific and Engineering Research Topics
Keywords
electric toothbrush, manual toothbrush, oral hygiene, dental plaque removal, toothbrushing duration
MeSH terms
Dental Devices, Home Care, Humans, 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