Duration and time of healing of intraoral (oral) lesions; number of individuals with oral lesions · Children and young adults under 25 years with primary herpetic gingivostomatitis (with or without herpes labialis)
Systemic oral acyclovir led to lower number of individuals with oral lesions (8 days after… compared with placebo or no treatment; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Duration and time of healing of extraoral lesions; development of new extraoral lesions · Children and young adults under 25 years with primary herpetic gingivostomatitis (with or without herpes labialis)
Systemic oral acyclovir led to lower number of individuals who developed new extraoral lesions after… compared with placebo or no treatment; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Number of individuals with eating difficulties (8 days after administration); duration of eating difficulties · Children and young adults under 25 years with primary herpetic gingivostomatitis (with or without herpes labialis)
Systemic oral acyclovir led to lower number of individuals with eating difficulties (8 days after… compared with placebo or no treatment; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Difficulty in drinking (number with drinking difficulties) · Children and young adults under 25 years with primary herpetic gingivostomatitis (with or without herpes labialis)
Systemic oral acyclovir led to lower number of individuals with drinking difficulties (8 days after… compared with placebo or no treatment; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Number of individuals admitted to hospital after administration · Children and young adults under 25 years with primary herpetic gingivostomatitis (with or without herpes labialis)
Systemic oral acyclovir showed no clear difference in number of individuals admitted to hospital after administration compared with placebo or no treatment; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Plaque · Individuals of any age with no reported disability that might affect toothbrushing (including people wearing orthodontic appliances)
Powered toothbrush, side-to-side action showed no clear difference in plaque score (>3 months) compared with manual toothbrush; GRADE not reported.
2 findings from 1 review
Plaque · Individuals of any age with no reported disability that might affect toothbrushing (including people wearing orthodontic appliances)
Powered toothbrush, ionic action led to lower plaque score (1 to 3 months) compared with manual toothbrush; GRADE not reported.
2 findings from 1 review
Gingivitis · Individuals of any age with no reported disability that might affect toothbrushing (including people wearing orthodontic appliances)
Powered toothbrush, ionic action showed no clear difference in gingivitis score (1 to 3 months) compared with manual toothbrush; GRADE not reported.
2 findings from 1 review
Dependability/reliability (mechanical failure) · Individuals of any age with no reported disability that might affect toothbrushing (including people wearing orthodontic appliances)
1 finding from 1 review
Calculus · Individuals of any age with no reported disability that might affect toothbrushing (including people wearing orthodontic appliances)
1 finding from 1 review
Plaque · Individuals of any age with no reported disability that might affect toothbrushing (including people wearing orthodontic appliances)
Powered toothbrush, rotation oscillation action led to lower plaque score (>3 months) compared with manual toothbrush; GRADE not reported.
2 findings from 1 review
Plaque · Individuals of any age with no reported disability that might affect toothbrushing (including people wearing orthodontic appliances)
Powered toothbrush, counter oscillation action led to lower plaque score (>3 months) compared with manual toothbrush; GRADE not reported.
2 findings from 1 review
Plaque · Individuals of any age with no reported disability that might affect toothbrushing (including people wearing orthodontic appliances)
Powered toothbrush, circular action showed no clear difference in plaque score (1 to 3 months) compared with manual toothbrush; GRADE not reported.
1 finding from 1 review
Staining · Individuals of any age with no reported disability that might affect toothbrushing (including people wearing orthodontic appliances)
1 finding from 1 review
Gingivitis · Individuals of any age with no reported disability that might affect toothbrushing (including people wearing orthodontic appliances)
Powered toothbrush, side-to-side action showed no clear difference in gingivitis score (>3 months) compared with manual toothbrush; GRADE not reported.
2 findings from 1 review
Gingivitis · Individuals of any age with no reported disability that might affect toothbrushing (including people wearing orthodontic appliances)
Powered toothbrush, ultrasonic action led to lower gingivitis score (1 to 3 months) compared with manual toothbrush; GRADE not reported.
2 findings from 1 review
Powered versus manual toothbrushing for oral health 2014 · Cochrane All outcomesShort term (1 to 3 months)
SMD -0.99 [-1.21, -0.76]
5 studies · 354 participants
GRADE not reported
Ultrasonic vs manual, gingivitis at >3 months: one trial (Terezhalmy 1995a); no statistically significant difference; totals not selected (no pooled estimate presented in this version).
1 study · 46 participants
GRADE not reported
Gingivitis · Individuals of any age with no reported disability that might affect toothbrushing (including people wearing orthodontic appliances)
2 findings from 1 review
Unknown/other action vs manual, gingivitis at >3 months: 1 trial; totals not selected.
1 study
GRADE not reported
Powered versus manual toothbrushing for oral health 2014 · Cochrane All outcomesShort term (1 to 3 months)
Unknown/other action vs manual, gingivitis at 1 to 3 months: 3 trials; totals not selected (data presented in forest plots but not pooled).
3 studies
GRADE not reported
Gingivitis · Individuals of any age with no reported disability that might affect toothbrushing (including people wearing orthodontic appliances)
Powered toothbrush, counter oscillation action showed no clear difference in gingivitis score (1 to 3 months) compared with manual toothbrush; GRADE not reported.
2 findings from 1 review
Gingivitis · Individuals of any age with no reported disability that might affect toothbrushing (including people wearing orthodontic appliances)
Powered toothbrush (any mode of action) probably leads to lower gingivitis score (1 to 3 months) compared with manual toothbrush (moderate certainty).
2 findings from 1 review
Adverse events (soft tissue trauma) · Individuals of any age with no reported disability that might affect toothbrushing (including people wearing orthodontic appliances)
1 finding from 1 review