Plaque, DentalNCT05372848
Clinical Evaluation of an Electric and a Manual Toothbrush in Removal of Dental Plaque
A study testing Manual toothbrush and Electric toothbrush in people with Plaque, Dental, run by Marmara University at 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye).
Trial summary
The study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of manual and electric toothbrush on dental plaque removal by using various intraoral imaging systems. Thirty healthy individuals using the same type of toothbrush for at least 2 years participated in the study. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 20 to 30 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Plaque, Dental
- What is being tested?
- Manual toothbrush and Electric toothbrush
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 30 participants
- Where
- 1 siteTurkey (Türkiye)
- Study dates
- 3 Jan 2022to 25 Mar 2022
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 20 to 30 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult
Who may be able to join
- using manual or electric toothbrush for at least 2 years
Who cannot join
- systemic disease,
- restoration or caries in anterior teeth
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
Turkey (Türkiye)1 site
Marmara University Faculty of Dentistry
Istanbul, Türkiye, 34854
About this study
Official title: Clinical Evaluation of an Electric and a Manual Toothbrush in Removal of Dental Plaque by Intraoral Imaging Systems
The study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of manual and electric toothbrush on dental plaque removal by using various intraoral imaging systems. Thirty healthy individuals using the same type of toothbrush for at least 2 years participated in the study. 12 teeth of each individual, including upper and lower anteriors, were examined. Group 1 including volunteers who used to use manual toothbrushes (MT) started to use an electric toothbrush (ET) and Group 2 including volunteers who used to use an ET and started to use a MT for 1 month with the same daily brushing routines. Following the clinical intraoral examination, plaque (PI) and gingival index (GI) measurements were performed 5 hours after brushing. The GI was evaluated through Sillness\&Löe Gingival Index. The PI was evaluated according to Quigley and Hein's Plaque Index criteria and was scored clinically on visual inspection and digital imaging systems including FluoreCam, DSLR Camera, D-Light Pro, Smile Lite MDP, iTero Element Flex. The data was evaluated under p<0.005 significant level.
Read the detailed description
Patient and teeth selection criteria Ten healthy individuals between the ages of 20 and 30 years with no systemic disease, restoration or caries, and whom have the criteria for using the same type of toothbrush for 2 years (15 of them use manual toothbrushes and 15 of them use electric toothbrushes) participated in the study. 12 teeth of each individual, including upper and lower anteriors, were examined. The researchers supplied the volunteers with a manual toothbrush (Oral-B toothbrush Pro Expert Complete, Procter\&Gamble, USA), an electronic toothbrush with replacement head (Oral-B Cross Action toothbrush replacement head, Procter\&Gamble, USA), and a toothpaste (Oral-B Professional Toothpaste and Enamel Pro Repair Toothpaste, Procter\&Gamble, USA).
Changing the Type of Toothbrush The first group (Group 1) includes volunteers who used to use manual toothbrushes and started to use an electric toothbrush for 1 month with the same daily brushing routine. The second group (Group 2) includes volunteers who used to use an electric toothbrush and started to use a manual toothbrush for 1 month with the same daily brushing routines.
Plaque and gingival index measurements Following the clinical intraoral examination of the volunteers in both groups, plaque and gingival index measurements were performed 5 hours after brushing. Regarding the plaque detection, a special 3-tone plaque staining product, Tri Plaque ID gel (GC Corp., Tokyo, Japan), was used to demonstrate the quantity and quality of the plaques on teeth' surfaces. The staining gel was applied onto buccal surfaces of upper and lower anterior teeth. The plaque and gingival indexes were both evaluated initially, 1 week, and 1 month after the toothbrush changes. The plaque index was evaluated according to Quigley and Hein's Plaque Index criteria. The gingival index was evaluated through Sillness \& Löe Gingival Index and was scored clinically on visual inspection, digitally on dental photographs and digital imaging systems.
Quigley ve Hein Plaque Index 0 -> No plaque 1 -> Flecks of stain of the gingival margin 2 -> Definitive line of plaque on gingival margin 3 -> Gingival third of surface 4 -> Two-thirds of surface 5 -> Greater then 2/3rd of the surface Sillness \& Löe Gingival Index 0 -> Healthy gingiva 1 -> Slight change in color and mild inflammation, no bleeding 2 -> Redness, moderate inflammation, bleeding on probing/pressure 3 -> Marked redness, severe inflammation, spontaneous bleeding Monitorization with intraoral dental photography The stained and unstained photographs of the teeth were taken initially, one week, and one month after the toothbrush changes. A camera (Nikon D7100), a macro lens (Nikon, 105mm VR macro lens), and a TTL dual macro flashlight (Meike MK-MT24N) was used for the DSLR photography. The camera parameters were set to ISO 400, diaphragm f/25, and shutter speed 1/125. A mobile dental photography device, Smile Lite MDP, was also used in combination with a smart phone (iPhone 12 Mini, Apple Inc, CA, USA) as an alternative photography technique. CP filter was used for all the photographs taken with Smart Lite MDP. The photographs with and without CP were taken without calibrating the white balance (WB) in auto white balance (AWB) mode. Additionally, a led curing unit D-Light Pro was used in detection mode in combination with the DSLR camera to enhance the visualization of the stained plaque. ISO was set at 1600 and diaphragm f/11 for photography with the D-Light Pro. The quantity of the plaque on tooth surfaces was scored through the photographic analysis.
Monitorization with digital imaging systems The stained and unstained measurements were performed initially, one week, and one month after the toothbrush changes by using FluoreCam and iTero Flex devices. After the plaque was stained, it was distinguished from healthy enamel tissue in terms of both color and fluorescence properties. FluoreCam device was used as one of the methods to determine the amount of dental plaque visually and numerically in this study. The stained plaque areas were automatically marked and recorded in the FluoreCam software, simultaneously with the visualization of fluorescence images of upper and lower anterior teeth on the screen. Size and intensity values of stained plaque were obtained from FluoreCam software. Size values represent the area of the plaque, meanwhile intensity values demonstrate the amount of mineral loss and were always represented as a negative number. Decreasing values in intensity (e.g., from -15 to -10) signify that the lesion (mineral content) had slightly improved.
The images of the anterior teeth were also taken by using a real-time intraoral scanner, iTero Element Flex (AlignTech, Carlstadt, USA) to digitalize and distinguish the plaque dye to provide clear 3D images and better visual assessment.
Plaque measurements and gingival index scores at initial, one week, and one month after the toothbrush change; for Group 1 and Group 2 were evaluated statistically using Mann Whitney U test. Additionally, the images obtained by the FluoreCam device were compared on the system software and evaluated statistically using Mann Whitney U and Wilcoxon tests.
- Conditions
- Plaque, Dental
- Being tested
- Manual toothbrush, Electric toothbrush
- Keywords
- manual toothbrush, electric toothbrush, fluorescence, intraoral scanner, FluoreCam
- Medical subject headings
- Dental Plaque
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Manual toothbrushDiagnostic test
volunteers who used manual toothbrush for at least 2 years
Electric toothbrushDiagnostic test
volunteers who used electric toothbrush for at least 2 years
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Group 1 | Other | Group 1 includes volunteers who used to use manual toothbrushes and started to use an electric toothbrush for 1 month with the same daily brushing routine. Fifteen healthy individuals between the ages of 20 and 30 years with no systemic disease, restoration or caries, and whom have the criteria for using a manual toothbrush for at least 2 years included in Group 1. Receives: Diagnostic Test: Manual toothbrush |
| Group 2 | Other | Group 2 includes volunteers who used to use an electric toothbrush and started to use a manual toothbrush for 1 month with the same daily brushing routines. Fifteen healthy individuals between the ages of 20 and 30 years with no systemic disease, restoration or caries, and whom have the criteria for using an electric toothbrush for at least 2 years included in Group 2. Receives: Diagnostic Test: Electric toothbrush |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Plaque index
Plaque was evaluated according to Quigley and Hein's Plaque Index criteria
Measured: 1 week
Gingival index
Gingival index was evaluated through Sillness\&Löe Gingival Index
Measured: 1 week
Fluorescence assesment
FluoreCam device is based on fluorescence technology. After dental plaque is stained, it is distinguished from healthy enamel tissue in terms of both color and fluorescence properties. FluoreCam system's software determines the amount of dental plaque visually and quantitatively. The stained plaque areas were automatically marked and recorded in the FluoreCam software, simultaneously with the visualization of fluorescence images of upper and lower anterior teeth on the screen. Size and intesity values of stained plaque were obtained from FluoreCam software.
Measured: 1 week
intraoral dental photography
dental plaque was evaluated using a digital camera and mobile dental photography device and scored according to Quigley and Hein's Plaque Index
Measured: 1 week
intraoral scanner
plaque was evaluated visually using iTero Flex intraoral scanner
Measured: 1 week
Secondary outcomes (5)
Plaque index
Plaque was evaluated according to Quigley and Hein's Plaque Index criteria
Measured: 1 month
Gingival index
Gingival index was evaluated through Sillness\&Löe Gingival Index
Measured: 1 month
Fluorescence assesment
FluoreCam device is based on fluorescence technology. After dental plaque is stained, it is distinguished from healthy enamel tissue in terms of both color and fluorescence properties. FluoreCam system's software determines the amount of dental plaque visually and quantitatively. The stained plaque areas were automatically marked and recorded in the FluoreCam software, simultaneously with the visualization of fluorescence images of upper and lower anterior teeth on the screen. Size and intesity values of stained plaque were obtained from FluoreCam software.
Measured: 1 month
intraoral dental photography
dental plaque was evaluated using a digital camera and mobile dental photography device and scored according to Quigley and Hein's Plaque Index
Measured: 1 month
intraoral scanner
plaque was evaluated visually using iTero Flex intraoral scanner
Measured: 1 month
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted13 May 2022
- Study start3 Jan 2022
- Primary completion17 Jan 2022
- Study completion25 Mar 2022
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (3)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Plaque, DentalStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- More trials run by Marmara UniversityThe sponsor's other registered studies.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Screening
- Allocation
- Non-randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Participant
- Enrolment
- 30 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Marmara University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
- Investigators
- Dilek Tağtekin, Prof. Dr., Study director, Marmara University Faculty of Dentistry Department of Restorative DentistryElif Alkan, Res. Asst., Principal investigator, Marmara University Faculty of Dentistry Department of Restorative DentistryAtaberk Kayhan, Student, Study chair, Marmara University Faculty of Dentistry
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05372848
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- mudis34
- Status last verified
- May 2022
- First submitted
- 6 May 2022
- Last updated
- 13 May 2022
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- Yes: Data obtained from the study will be presented and published internationally
Publications
QUIGLEY GA, HEIN JW. Comparative cleansing efficiency of manual and power brushing. J Am Dent Assoc. 1962 Jul;65:26-9. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.1962.0184. No abstract available.
PubMed 14489483LOE H, SILNESS J. PERIODONTAL DISEASE IN PREGNANCY. I. PREVALENCE AND SEVERITY. Acta Odontol Scand. 1963 Dec;21:533-51. doi: 10.3109/00016356309011240. No abstract available.
PubMed 14121956Abufarwa M, Noureldin A, Campbell PM, Buschang PH. Reliability and validity of FluoreCam for white-spot lesion detection: An in vitro study. J Investig Clin Dent. 2018 Feb;9(1). doi: 10.1111/jicd.12277. Epub 2017 Jun 20.
PubMed 28631885
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 13 May 2022. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Clinical Evaluation of an Electric and a Manual Toothbrush in Removal of Dental Plaque by Intraoral Imaging Systems
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05372848
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- mudis34
- Conditions
- Plaque, Dental
- Keywords
- manual toothbrush, electric toothbrush, fluorescence, intraoral scanner, FluoreCam
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 30 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Marmara UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- 3 Jan 2022 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 17 Jan 2022 (actual)
- Study completion
- 25 Mar 2022 (actual)
- First posted
- 13 May 2022 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
The study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of manual and electric toothbrush on dental plaque removal by using various intraoral imaging systems. Thirty healthy individuals using the same type of toothbrush for at least 2 years participated in the study. 12 teeth of each individual, including upper and lower anteriors, were examined. Group 1 including volunteers who used to use manual toothbrushes (MT) started to use an electric toothbrush (ET) and Group 2 including volunteers who used to use an ET and started to use a MT for 1 month with the same daily brushing routines. Following the clinical intraoral examination, plaque (PI) and gingival index (GI) measurements were performed 5 hours after brushing. The GI was evaluated through Sillness\&Löe Gingival Index. The PI was evaluated according to Quigley and Hein's Plaque Index criteria and was scored clinically on visual inspection and digital imaging systems including FluoreCam, DSLR Camera, D-Light Pro, Smile Lite MDP, iTero Element Flex. The data was evaluated under p<0.005 significant level.
Detailed description
Patient and teeth selection criteria Ten healthy individuals between the ages of 20 and 30 years with no systemic disease, restoration or caries, and whom have the criteria for using the same type of toothbrush for 2 years (15 of them use manual toothbrushes and 15 of them use electric toothbrushes) participated in the study. 12 teeth of each individual, including upper and lower anteriors, were examined. The researchers supplied the volunteers with a manual toothbrush (Oral-B toothbrush Pro Expert Complete, Procter\&Gamble, USA), an electronic toothbrush with replacement head (Oral-B Cross Action toothbrush replacement head, Procter\&Gamble, USA), and a toothpaste (Oral-B Professional Toothpaste and Enamel Pro Repair Toothpaste, Procter\&Gamble, USA).
Changing the Type of Toothbrush The first group (Group 1) includes volunteers who used to use manual toothbrushes and started to use an electric toothbrush for 1 month with the same daily brushing routine. The second group (Group 2) includes volunteers who used to use an electric toothbrush and started to use a manual toothbrush for 1 month with the same daily brushing routines.
Plaque and gingival index measurements Following the clinical intraoral examination of the volunteers in both groups, plaque and gingival index measurements were performed 5 hours after brushing. Regarding the plaque detection, a special 3-tone plaque staining product, Tri Plaque ID gel (GC Corp., Tokyo, Japan), was used to demonstrate the quantity and quality of the plaques on teeth' surfaces. The staining gel was applied onto buccal surfaces of upper and lower anterior teeth. The plaque and gingival indexes were both evaluated initially, 1 week, and 1 month after the toothbrush changes. The plaque index was evaluated according to Quigley and Hein's Plaque Index criteria. The gingival index was evaluated through Sillness \& Löe Gingival Index and was scored clinically on visual inspection, digitally on dental photographs and digital imaging systems.
Quigley ve Hein Plaque Index 0 -> No plaque 1 -> Flecks of stain of the gingival margin 2 -> Definitive line of plaque on gingival margin 3 -> Gingival third of surface 4 -> Two-thirds of surface 5 -> Greater then 2/3rd of the surface Sillness \& Löe Gingival Index 0 -> Healthy gingiva 1 -> Slight change in color and mild inflammation, no bleeding 2 -> Redness, moderate inflammation, bleeding on probing/pressure 3 -> Marked redness, severe inflammation, spontaneous bleeding Monitorization with intraoral dental photography The stained and unstained photographs of the teeth were taken initially, one week, and one month after the toothbrush changes. A camera (Nikon D7100), a macro lens (Nikon, 105mm VR macro lens), and a TTL dual macro flashlight (Meike MK-MT24N) was used for the DSLR photography. The camera parameters were set to ISO 400, diaphragm f/25, and shutter speed 1/125. A mobile dental photography device, Smile Lite MDP, was also used in combination with a smart phone (iPhone 12 Mini, Apple Inc, CA, USA) as an alternative photography technique. CP filter was used for all the photographs taken with Smart Lite MDP. The photographs with and without CP were taken without calibrating the white balance (WB) in auto white balance (AWB) mode. Additionally, a led curing unit D-Light Pro was used in detection mode in combination with the DSLR camera to enhance the visualization of the stained plaque. ISO was set at 1600 and diaphragm f/11 for photography with the D-Light Pro. The quantity of the plaque on tooth surfaces was scored through the photographic analysis.
Monitorization with digital imaging systems The stained and unstained measurements were performed initially, one week, and one month after the toothbrush changes by using FluoreCam and iTero Flex devices. After the plaque was stained, it was distinguished from healthy enamel tissue in terms of both color and fluorescence properties. FluoreCam device was used as one of the methods to determine the amount of dental plaque visually and numerically in this study. The stained plaque areas were automatically marked and recorded in the FluoreCam software, simultaneously with the visualization of fluorescence images of upper and lower anterior teeth on the screen. Size and intensity values of stained plaque were obtained from FluoreCam software. Size values represent the area of the plaque, meanwhile intensity values demonstrate the amount of mineral loss and were always represented as a negative number. Decreasing values in intensity (e.g., from -15 to -10) signify that the lesion (mineral content) had slightly improved.
The images of the anterior teeth were also taken by using a real-time intraoral scanner, iTero Element Flex (AlignTech, Carlstadt, USA) to digitalize and distinguish the plaque dye to provide clear 3D images and better visual assessment.
Plaque measurements and gingival index scores at initial, one week, and one month after the toothbrush change; for Group 1 and Group 2 were evaluated statistically using Mann Whitney U test. Additionally, the images obtained by the FluoreCam device were compared on the system software and evaluated statistically using Mann Whitney U and Wilcoxon tests.
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Screening
- Allocation
- Non-randomised
- Intervention model
- Crossover
- Masking
- Single blind (participant)
- Number of arms
- 2
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Group 1 | Other | Diagnostic Test: Manual toothbrushGroup 1 includes volunteers who used to use manual toothbrushes and started to use an electric toothbrush for 1 month with the same daily brushing routine. Fifteen healthy individuals between the ages of 20 and 30 years with no systemic disease, restoration or caries, and whom have the criteria for using a manual toothbrush for at least 2 years included in Group 1. |
| Group 2 | Other | Diagnostic Test: Electric toothbrushGroup 2 includes volunteers who used to use an electric toothbrush and started to use a manual toothbrush for 1 month with the same daily brushing routines. Fifteen healthy individuals between the ages of 20 and 30 years with no systemic disease, restoration or caries, and whom have the criteria for using an electric toothbrush for at least 2 years included in Group 2. |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 20 to 30 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- using manual or electric toothbrush for at least 2 years
Key exclusion criteria (2 listed)
- systemic disease,
- restoration or caries in anterior teeth
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Manual toothbrushvolunteers who used manual toothbrush for at least 2 years | Diagnostic test | Group 1 |
| Electric toothbrushvolunteers who used electric toothbrush for at least 2 years | Diagnostic test | Group 2 |
Primary outcome
Plaque index
Time frame: 1 week
Plaque was evaluated according to Quigley and Hein's Plaque Index criteria
Gingival index
Time frame: 1 week
Gingival index was evaluated through Sillness\&Löe Gingival Index
Fluorescence assesment
Time frame: 1 week
FluoreCam device is based on fluorescence technology. After dental plaque is stained, it is distinguished from healthy enamel tissue in terms of both color and fluorescence properties. FluoreCam system's software determines the amount of dental plaque visually and quantitatively. The stained plaque areas were automatically marked and recorded in the FluoreCam software, simultaneously with the visualization of fluorescence images of upper and lower anterior teeth on the screen. Size and intesity values of stained plaque were obtained from FluoreCam software.
intraoral dental photography
Time frame: 1 week
dental plaque was evaluated using a digital camera and mobile dental photography device and scored according to Quigley and Hein's Plaque Index
intraoral scanner
Time frame: 1 week
plaque was evaluated visually using iTero Flex intraoral scanner
5 secondary outcomes
Plaque index
Time frame: 1 month
Gingival index
Time frame: 1 month
Fluorescence assesment
Time frame: 1 month
intraoral dental photography
Time frame: 1 month
intraoral scanner
Time frame: 1 month
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 13 May 2022.
- Background: PubMed 14489483QUIGLEY GA, HEIN JW. Comparative cleansing efficiency of manual and power brushing. J Am Dent Assoc. 1962 Jul;65:26-9. doi: 10.14219/jada.archive.1962.0184. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 14121956LOE H, SILNESS J. PERIODONTAL DISEASE IN PREGNANCY. I. PREVALENCE AND SEVERITY. Acta Odontol Scand. 1963 Dec;21:533-51. doi: 10.3109/00016356309011240. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 28631885Abufarwa M, Noureldin A, Campbell PM, Buschang PH. Reliability and validity of FluoreCam for white-spot lesion detection: An in vitro study. J Investig Clin Dent. 2018 Feb;9(1). doi: 10.1111/jicd.12277. Epub 2017 Jun 20.
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: Yes. Data obtained from the study will be presented and published internationally
Related trials for Plaque, Dental
Active, not recruitingPhase 3
A Study to Assess the Efficacy of Two Brushing Regimens in the Reduction of Established Dental Plaque and Gingivitis
Plaque, Gingivitis
Not yet recruiting
Effectiveness of Personalized Digital Oral Health Intervention in Patients With Fixed Orthodontic Appliances.
Oral Hygiene in Patients With Fixed Orthodontic Appliances, Dental Plaque
Not yet recruiting
Effect of Xylitol- Versus Erythritol-Sweetened Mints on Plaque ATP-Bioluminescence Readings
Dental Caries, Dental Plaque
Not yet recruitingObservational study
Plaque and Bleeding on Probing Around Implants Supporting Fixed Full-Arch Dental Prostheses
Peri-Implant Health
Not yet recruiting
Effectiveness of Oil Pulling Using Oils in Comparison With Mouthwash for Gingivitis
Gingivitis
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Dilek Tağtekin, Prof. Dr. study director
Marmara University Faculty of Dentistry Department of Restorative Dentistry
Elif Alkan, Res. Asst. principal investigator
Marmara University Faculty of Dentistry Department of Restorative Dentistry
Ataberk Kayhan, Student study chair
Marmara University Faculty of Dentistry
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Manual toothbrush and Electric toothbrush in people with Plaque, Dental, run by Marmara University at 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye).
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 2 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 13 May 2022. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Turkey (Türkiye). Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Plaque index (time frame: 1 week). The study lists 5 primary outcomes in all. It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT05372848, which also lists 3 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 13 May 2022.