Table 3.
Summary of the quality assessment of toothbrush bristle stiffness and end-shape analyses
| Quality assessment | Summary of findings | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. of studies | Study design | Risk of bias | Inconsistency | Indirectness | Imprecision | Other considerations | Impact | Quality | Importance |
| Toothbrush bristle stiffness and oral soft tissue lesions (follow-up: range from 7 days to 12 weeks) | |||||||||
| 7 | Randomised trials | Very serious* | Not serious | Serious* | Not serious | Dose response gradient | The risk of bias detected in the studies and the absence of clear methodologies to assess oral soft tissue lesions may impact the results | ⨁⨁◯◯ LOW |
Critical |
| Toothbrush end-shape and oral soft tissue lesions (follow-up: range from 7 days to 6 months) | |||||||||
| 11 | Randomised trials | Very serious† | Not serious | Serious† | Not serious | Dose response gradient | The risk of bias detected in the studies and the absence of clear methodologies to assess oral soft tissue lesions may impact the results | ⨁⨁◯◯ LOW |
Critical |
*
Allocation concealment is not properly reported in all studies. Moreover, the number of smokers in each group is not well described in each study. The lack of specific methodologies to assess oral soft tissue lesions may impact the main results. †The allocation concealment and blinding of outcome assessments are not properly reported in all studies. Moreover, the number of smokers in each group is not well described in each study. The lack of specific methodologies to assess oral soft tissue lesions may impact the main results.