PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 12161390

Models for assessing powered toothbrushes.

G A Van der Weijden
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The continued development of the power toothbrush over the last 25 years has led to some present-day models that demonstrate increased efficacy in plaque removal compared with a manual brush. The wealth of clinical data that supports these claims has a reference to both in vitro and in vivo models. An overview of performance evidence compared with manual toothbrushes must also be considered from a research model view. The issue of power toothbrush safety in relation to soft tissue abrasion will offer an opportunity for the review of the scientific facts behind any fictitious "hype". Specific studies will provide clinical evidence on power toothbrush safety and performance. This paper will consider implications of the evidence for the use of powered toothbrushes in clinical practice and will emphasize the current consensus of clinical opinion in the light of scientific evidence.

Explore related subjects

Clinical Trials as TopicDental Devices, Home CareDental PlaqueDental Stress AnalysisElectricityEquipment DesignEquipment SafetyGingivaGingivitisHumansResearch DesignTooth AbrasionToothbrushingJournal Article

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

G A Van der Weijden. 2002. Models for assessing powered toothbrushes.. https://doi.org/10.1177/154407370201600106

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2003

Mistletoe for cancer? A systematic review of randomised clinical trials.

Mistletoe extracts are widely used in the treatment of cancer. The results of clinical trials are however highly inconsistent. We therefore conducted a systematic review of all randomised clinical trials of this unconventional therapy. Eight databases were searched to identify all studies that met our inclusion/exclusion criteria. Data were independently validated and extracted by 2 authors and checked by the 3rd according to predefined criteria. Statistical pooling was not possible because of the heterogeneity of the primary studies. Therefore a narrative systematic review was conducted. Ten trials could be included. Most of the studies had considerable weaknesses in terms of study design, reporting or both. Some of the weaker studies implied benefits of mistletoe extracts, particularly in terms of quality of life. None of the methodologically stronger trials exhibited efficacy in terms of quality of life, survival or other outcome measures. Rigorous trials of mistletoe extracts fail to demonstrate efficacy of this therapy.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗
PubMed2003

On the non-inferiority of a diagnostic test based on paired observations.

Non-inferiority of a diagnostic test to the standard or the optimum test is a common issue in medical research. Often we want to determine if a new diagnostic test is as good as the standard reference test. Sometimes we are interested in an inexpensive test that may have an acceptably inferior sensitivity or specificity. While hypothesis testing procedures and sample size formulae for the equivalence of sensitivity or specificity alone have been proposed, very few studies have discussed simultaneous comparisons of both parameters. In this paper, we present three different testing procedures and sample size formulae for simultaneous comparison of sensitivity and specificity based on paired observations and with known disease status. These statistical procedures are then used to compare two classification rules that identify women for future osteoporotic fracture. Simulation experiments demonstrate that the new tests and sample size formulae give the appropriate type I and II error rates. Differences between our approach and the approach of Lui and Cumberland are discussed.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗