TABLE 11.

Estimated evidence profile appraisal of the strength of the recommendation, and the direction regarding the efficacy of the OR‐PTB compared to the HFS‐PTB on dental plaque removal and parameters of gingival inflammation

Determinants of quality	Plaque Index Score	Bleeding Index Score	Gingival Index Score
Study design (Online Appendix S1A,B)	RCT crossover or parallel design	RCT crossover or parallel design	RCT crossover or parallel design
# Studies N = 32	N = 38	N = 51	N = 38
# Comparisons N = 38 (Figure 1)
# Studies in MA & TSA & CR
Risk of bias (Online Appendix S3A,B)	Low‐Moderate	Low‐Moderate	Low
Consistency (Table 2, Online Appendix S3A,B)	Rather consistent	Rather consistent	Rather consistent
Directness (Longer term use)	Rather generalizable	Rather generalizable	Rather generalizable
Precision (Tables 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)	Precise	Precise	Precise
Reporting bias (Online appendix S10B,D, S11B,D,G, S14B,D,G, S15B,D,G and S16B,D,G)	Likely	Likely	Likely
Magnitude of the effect (Tables 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)	Very small	Very small	None or very small
Strength of the recommendation based on the quality and body of evidence	Moderate
Direction of recommendation	There is a moderate certainty of a very small clinical relevant beneficial effect for an OR‐PTB over a HFS‐PTB.

Abbreviations: CR, Clinical relevance; HFS‐PTB, High‐frequency sonic power toothbrush; MA, Meta‐analysis; OR‐PTB, Oscillating‐rotating power toothbrush; TSA, Trial sequential analysis.