-
SpringerPlus 2016Peri-implantitis or Periimplantitis is characterized as an inflammatory reaction that affects the hard and soft tissue, which results in loss of supporting bone and... (Review)
Review
Peri-implantitis or Periimplantitis is characterized as an inflammatory reaction that affects the hard and soft tissue, which results in loss of supporting bone and pocket formation surrounding the functioning osseointegrated implant. This review aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of surgical and non-surgical treatment of peri-implantitis. The data sources used was PubMed. Searches of this database were restricted to English language publications from January 2010 to June 2015. All Randomized Controlled Trials describing the treatments of peri-implantitis of human studies with a follow up of at least 6 months were included. Eligibility and quality were assessed and two reviewers extracted the data. Data extraction comprised of type, intensity provider, and location of the intervention. A total of 20 publications were included (10 involving surgical and 10 involving non-surgical mechanical procedure). The non-surgical approach involves the mechanical surface debridement using carbon or titanium currettes, laser light, and antibiotics whereas, surgical approach involves implantoplasty, elevation of mucoperiosteal flap and removal of peri-inflammatory granulation tissue followed by surface decontamination and bone grafting. This study reveals that non-surgical therapy tends to remove only the local irritant from the peri-implantitis surface with or without some additional adjunctive therapies agents or device. Hence, non-surgical therapy is not helpful in osseous defect. Surgical therapy in combination with osseous resective or regenerative approach removes the residual sub-gingival deposits additionally reducing the peri-implantitis pocket. Although there is no specific recommendation for the treatment of peri-implantitis, surgical therapy in combination with osseous resective or regenerative approach showed the positive outcome.
PubMed: 26877903
DOI: 10.1186/s40064-016-1735-2 -
International Journal of Dental Hygiene Feb 2018This systematic review was performed to establish the effect of a manual toothbrush with tapered toothbrush filaments (TFTBs) compared to a manual toothbrush with... (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
This systematic review was performed to establish the effect of a manual toothbrush with tapered toothbrush filaments (TFTBs) compared to a manual toothbrush with end-rounded toothbrush filaments (ERTB) on clinical parameters of dental plaque, gingivitis and gingival abrasion.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
MEDLINE-PubMed and Cochrane-CENTRAL databases were searched. The inclusion criteria were (randomized) controlled clinical trials, participants ≥18 years and papers evaluating the effect of a TFTB compared to an ERTB. Data were extracted for dental plaque index (PI), bleeding scores (BS), gingival index scores (GI) and gingival abrasion scores (GA). A descriptive analysis and a meta-analysis were performed when appropriate.
RESULTS
An independent screening of 33 unique papers resulted in seven eligible publications, which included eight comparisons. Meta-analysis did not show a significant difference between TFTB and ERTB with respect to PI scores. The meta-analysis of the GI scores showed a significant mean difference in favour of the TFTB (DiffM=-0.12 [95% CI: -0.17; -0.07]). Of the three comparisons evaluating GA, no differences were found.
CONCLUSION
With respect to plaque removal, evidence that supports the recommendation for usage of a TFTB over an ERTB is lacking. Regarding GI, there is minimal evidence favouring a TFTB over an ERTB and the clinical relevance of this difference is probably negligible. Therefore, based on the collective evidence emerging from this systematic review, the strength and direction of the recommendation, there appears to be no firm evidence for a dental healthcare professional to advise the use of a TFTB over the use of an ERTB.
Topics: Dental Plaque; Equipment Design; Gingivitis; Humans; Periodontal Index; Toothbrushing
PubMed: 28173609
DOI: 10.1111/idh.12272 -
International Journal of Dental Hygiene Feb 2023To systematically review the literature about the antiplaque and antigingivitis efficacy of new and worn manual toothbrushes. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To systematically review the literature about the antiplaque and antigingivitis efficacy of new and worn manual toothbrushes.
METHODS
Five databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials, involving adults, comparing the clinical efficacy of new and worn manual toothbrushes. Experimental groups need to have different usage time in changing their manual toothbrush. Two reviewers performed studies selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment independently. Meta-analyses were performed comparing the toothbrushes after a single use (antiplaque efficacy) and after multiple uses (antiplaque and antigingivitis efficacy).
RESULTS
Eight studies were included, totalling 344 individuals. In studies with a single-use design, no statistically difference was found between new and worn toothbrushes for antiplaque efficacy (SMD:-0.39; 95%CI:-0.80 to 0.03). Studies with a multiple-use design showed no statistically difference between groups for the antigingivitis efficacy (MD:-0.10; 95%CI:-0.24 to 0.03). However, higher antiplaque efficacy was demonstrated in new toothbrushes in the studies with a multiple-use design (SMD:-0.75; 95%CI:-1.37 to -0.14). The certainty of the evidence ranged from very low (antiplaque) to low (antigingivitis).
CONCLUSION
New and worn toothbrushes presented similar antiplaque and antigingivitis efficacy. However, further randomized controlled trials, with a lower risk of bias, are needed to enhance the certainty of this evidence.
Topics: Humans; Gingivitis; Dental Plaque; Toothbrushing; Dental Plaque Index; Equipment Design
PubMed: 36300684
DOI: 10.1111/idh.12640 -
International Journal of Paediatric... Nov 2022Children and adolescents with vision impairment (VI) may be at increased risk of oral health issues, such as periodontal inflammation, poor oral hygiene, dental caries,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Children and adolescents with vision impairment (VI) may be at increased risk of oral health issues, such as periodontal inflammation, poor oral hygiene, dental caries, and dental trauma, but this is inconclusive in the literature.
AIM
To systematically review the literature to determine the main oral health issues of children and adolescents with VI compared to those without VI.
DESIGN
Electronic and manual searches were performed to identify observational studies involving children and adolescents with and without VI, to determine and compare their oral health issues. The methodological quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal tool. Studies that had homogeneity of methods were incorporated into meta-analyses.
RESULTS
Fifteen cross-sectional studies were included. Overall, most studies presented methodological flaws and high risk of bias. The meta-analysis showed that children and adolescents with VI were 3.86 times as likely to exhibit dental trauma (OR = 3.86, 95% CI = 2.63-5.68, I = 0%) and had higher/poorer values for plaque (MD = 0.80, 95% CI = 0.58-1.02, I = 96%), gingivitis (MD = 0.69, 95% CI = 0.02-1.37, I = 100%), calculus (MD = 0.04, 95% CI = 0.03-0.06, I = 0%), and oral hygiene indices (MD = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.24-1.18, I = 97%), as well as DMFS (MD = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.68-1.13, I = 26%).
CONCLUSION
Across a wide array of assessments, children and adolescents with vision impairment had worse oral health outcomes than those without VI.
Topics: Adolescent; Child; Cross-Sectional Studies; Dental Caries; Dental Plaque; Gingivitis; Humans; Oral Health
PubMed: 35445456
DOI: 10.1111/ipd.12967 -
Journal of Clinical Periodontology Dec 2016The aim of this systematic review was to establish the efficacy of brushing with and without a dentifrice for dental plaque removal. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIMS
The aim of this systematic review was to establish the efficacy of brushing with and without a dentifrice for dental plaque removal.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
MEDLINE-PubMed, Cochrane-CENTRAL, EMBASE and other electronic databases were searched. The inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials and subjects ≥18 years of age with good general health. Studies that evaluated the effect of toothbrushing with a dentifrice compared to brushing without a dentifrice were included. Data were extracted from the eligible studies, and a meta-analysis was performed where feasible.
RESULT
The search was conducted until June 2016 and retrieved 10 eligible publications that included 20 comparisons. On average, 49.2% of plaque was removed when brushing was performed with a dentifrice, and 50.3% of plaque was removed when toothbrushing was performed without a dentifrice. The descriptive analysis indicated that the majority of the comparisons did not show an additional effect of dentifrice use. Regarding the meta-analysis of post-brushing scores, no significant difference was observed between toothbrushing with and without a dentifrice (DiffM 0.00, 95%CI [-0.05: 0.05], p = 0.91). The meta-analysis of incremental data (as means or percentages) supported and strengthened these findings.
CONCLUSION
The cumulative evidence for this systematic review demonstrates that there is moderate certainty that toothbrushing with a dentifrice does not provide an added effect for the mechanical removal of dental plaque.
Topics: Dental Plaque; Dental Plaque Index; Dentifrices; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Toothbrushing; Toothpastes
PubMed: 27513809
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.12615 -
Indian Journal of Dental Research :... 2022Chewable toothbrushes (CT) are considered an effective tool for dental plaque removal; however, their effectiveness is still uncertain compared to Manual toothbrushes... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
Chewable toothbrushes (CT) are considered an effective tool for dental plaque removal; however, their effectiveness is still uncertain compared to Manual toothbrushes (MT).
AIM
To evaluate the effectiveness of CT compared to MT in dental plaque removal.
METHODS
Studies comparing the efficiency of CT and MT in dental plaque removal measured by Turesky Modification of Quigley-Hein Plaque Index (TMQHI), Quigley-Hein Plaque Index (QHI), or Silness Loe Plaque Index (SLPI) were identified in PubMed, Medline Web of Science, Google Scholar, and the CENTRAL. Results and effect sizes estimate are presented as mean difference, and subgroup analysis is presented separately for non-randomised interventional studies and randomised intervention studies. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROBINS-I and ROB2 tool).
RESULTS
A total of 10 studies were included in the systematic review, whereas six out of 10 studies were included in the meta-analysis. Both CT and MT were effective in plaque reduction over time when compared individually using the TMQHI and SLPI scores. The overall pooled summary showed no difference in CT and MT's dental plaque removal ability when measured using the TMQHI score. Similarly, there was no difference in CT and MT's dental plaque removal ability when measured using the SLPI score.
CONCLUSION
There is no significant difference in CT and MT's plaque removal ability. Therefore, CT should only be recommended for children and individuals with a disability or manual dexterity.
OBJECTIVE
Chewable toothbrushes (CT) are considered an effective tool for dental plaque removal.
Topics: Child; Humans; Dental Devices, Home Care; Gingivitis; Dental Plaque; Toothbrushing; Dental Plaque Index; Equipment Design
PubMed: 37006013
DOI: 10.4103/ijdr.ijdr_1158_21 -
Brazilian Dental Journal 2019The aim of presented systematic scoping review was to investigate the actual and future clinical possibilities of regenerative therapies and their ability to regenerate...
The aim of presented systematic scoping review was to investigate the actual and future clinical possibilities of regenerative therapies and their ability to regenerate bone, periodontal and pulp with histological confirmation of the nature of formed tissue. Electronic search was conducted using a combination between Keywords and MeSH terms in PubMed, Scopus, ISI-Web of Science and Cochrane library databases up to January 2016. Two reviewers conducted independently the papers judgment. Screened studies were read following the predetermined inclusion criteria. The included studies were evaluated in accordance with Arksey and O'Malley's modified framework. From 1349 papers, 168 completed inclusion criteria. Several characterized and uncharacterized cells used in Cell Therapy have provided bone regeneration, demonstrating bone gain in quantity and quality, even as accelerators for bone and periodontal regeneration. Synthetic and natural scaffolds presented good cell maintenance, however polyglycolid-polylactid presented faster resorption and consequently poor bone gain. The Growth Factor-Mediated Therapy was able to regenerate bone and all features of a periodontal tissue in bone defects. Teeth submitted to Revascularization presented an increase of length and width of root canal. However, formed tissues not seem able to deposit dentin, characterizing a repaired tissue. Both PRP and PRF presented benefits when applied in regenerative therapies as natural scaffolds. Therefore, most studies that applied regenerative therapies have provided promising results being possible to regenerate bone and periodontal tissue with histological confirmation. However, pulp regeneration was not reported. These results should be interpreted with caution due to the short follow-up periods.
Topics: Bone Regeneration; Dental Pulp; Dentin; Periodontium; Root Canal Therapy
PubMed: 30970065
DOI: 10.1590/0103-6440201902053 -
Clinical Oral Investigations Feb 2022This network meta-analysis (NMA) assessed the antiplaque and anti-inflammatory efficacy of different sugar-free chewing gums (SFCG) as adjuncts to toothbrushing. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
This network meta-analysis (NMA) assessed the antiplaque and anti-inflammatory efficacy of different sugar-free chewing gums (SFCG) as adjuncts to toothbrushing.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases were searched up to February 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials, involving adults, comparing antiplaque and anti-inflammatory effects of SFCG, with different active ingredients, as adjunctive to mechanical control of biofilm, with a minimum of 7-day of follow-up. Plaque and gingival indexes were assessed. The risk of bias assessment was performed with the RoB 2.0 tool. NMA, and pairwise meta-analyses were performed for both dental plaque and gingival indexes.
RESULTS
Twelve studies were included, comprising 850 (antiplaque) and 1459 (gingival inflammation) subjects randomized into 9 interventions: (1) chlorhexidine; (2) chlorhexidine + xylitol (CHX+Xyl); (3) green tea + xylitol (GT+Xyl); (4) magnolia; (5) Lactobacillus reuteri; (6) vitamin C + xylitol; (7) vitamin + carbamide; (8) eucalyptus; and (9) negative control, sorbitol, gum base only, or no chewing gum. No statistically significant differences were detected among SFCG, with different active ingredients, for both antiplaque and anti-inflammatory efficacy (p > 0.05). However, SFCG with GT+XyL outperformed negative control gums regarding antiplaque efficacy (SMD, - 2.93; 95% CrI, - 0.45 to - 5.38). The SUCRA results showed that SFCG containing GT+Xyl was ranked first, for both antiplaque and anti-inflammatory outcomes.
CONCLUSION
SFCG containing GT+Xyl showed better antiplaque effect over negative controls. However, cautious interpretation is required due to the low number of direct comparisons arms. These shortcomings underscore the need for RCTs with mostly head-to-head comparison that provide more conclusive evidence.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
There is no robust evidence for the clinical indications of sugar-free chewing gums as adjunct to toothbrushing for the control of biofilm or the treatment of gingivitis.
Topics: Adult; Chewing Gum; Dental Plaque; Gingivitis; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Toothbrushing; Xylitol
PubMed: 35072769
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-021-04264-1 -
Clinical Oral Investigations Jan 2022A systematic review of published data was conducted with the aim of assessing the effects of xylitol consumption on the amount of dental plaque. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
A systematic review of published data was conducted with the aim of assessing the effects of xylitol consumption on the amount of dental plaque.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Electronic and hand searches were performed to find clinical studies concerning the effects of xylitol chewing gum or candies on dental plaque. Prospective randomized controlled clinical trials published between 1971 and 2020 conducted in healthy subjects were included in the review.
RESULTS
The initial search identified 424 xylitol articles. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, altogether 14 articles (16 studies) were reviewed. The review identified 12 of the total of 14 xylitol chewing gum studies as having fair or high quality. In 13 of the 14 chewing gum studies, xylitol gum decreased plaque accumulation. In six studies, xylitol gum chewing decreased plaque compared to sorbitol gum, and in three studies compared to gum base/no gum. In three fair-quality studies conducted with xylitol candies, plaque accumulation did not change.
CONCLUSIONS
Habitual xylitol gum chewing appears to show plaque-reducing effects that differ from those of sorbitol gum. This suggests specific effects for xylitol on plaque accumulation. Xylitol candies appear not to decrease plaque. The heterogeneity of the studies warrants further research. Clinical relevance Habitual xylitol gum chewing is likely to decrease plaque.
Topics: Chewing Gum; Dental Plaque; Dental Plaque Index; Humans; Prospective Studies; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sorbitol; Xylitol
PubMed: 34677696
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-021-04225-8 -
Journal of Dentistry Dec 2023To determine the validity and reliability of novel digitalized tools for dental plaque detection and explore the benefits and limitations connected to their use. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To determine the validity and reliability of novel digitalized tools for dental plaque detection and explore the benefits and limitations connected to their use.
DATA
Reporting followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Extension for Scoping Reviews. All human clinical studies comparing dental plaque detection using digitalized systems against a standard reference were included.
SOURCES
PubMed and Scopus were screened from 01 January 2013 to 28 September 2023. Bibliographies of primary studies and principal peer-reviewed scientific journals were manually searched.
STUDY SELECTION
The initial search identified 576 articles, with a total of 13 included in the review, published between 2015 and 2023. Most of the studies included (77 %) were cross-sectional with three being prospective. Digital devices captured 2D and 3D images via cameras and intra-oral scanners, respectively. The Turesky's modified plaque index was the most frequent clinical index. Correlation with clinical examination was moderate to strong, with good to excellent intra- and inter-system agreement.
CONCLUSIONS
Within the limitations of this scoping review, image analysis-based plaque detection systems demonstrated good correlations with clinical plaque indices, using both 2D and 3D imaging systems. Whilst digital plaque detection devices offer advantages in terms of procedural standardization and reproducibility, they also have limitations, therefore currently, their application should be underpinned by a comprehensive clinical examination.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Digital plaque detection tools, that provide standardized measurements and store acquired images, facilitate more informed feedback to patients. This objective analysis may enhance clinician confidence in their utility for clinical trials and other applications.
Topics: Humans; Reproducibility of Results; Dental Plaque; Prospective Studies; Dental Plaque Index; Imaging, Three-Dimensional
PubMed: 37939996
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2023.104772