-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2019Good oral hygiene is thought to be important for oral health. This review is to determine the effectiveness of flossing in addition to toothbrushing for preventing gum... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Good oral hygiene is thought to be important for oral health. This review is to determine the effectiveness of flossing in addition to toothbrushing for preventing gum disease and dental caries in adults.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of flossing in addition to toothbrushing, as compared with toothbrushing alone, in the management of periodontal diseases and dental caries in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 17 October 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 4), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 17 October 2011), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 17 October 2011), CINAHL via EBSCO (1980 to 17 October 2011), LILACS via BIREME (1982 to 17 October 2011), ZETOC Conference Proceedings (1980 to 17 October 2011), Web of Science Conference Proceedings (1990 to 17 October 2011), Clinicaltrials.gov (to 17 October 2011) and the metaRegister of Controlled Clinical Trials (to 17 October 2011). We imposed no restrictions regarding language or date of publication. We contacted manufacturers of dental floss to identify trials.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials conducted comparing toothbrushing and flossing with only toothbrushing, in adults.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias for the included studies and extracted data. We contacted trial authors for further details where these were unclear. The effect measure for each meta-analysis was the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random-effects models. We examined potential sources of heterogeneity, along with sensitivity analyses omitting trials at high risk of bias.
MAIN RESULTS
Twelve trials were included in this review, with a total of 582 participants in flossing plus toothbrushing (intervention) groups and 501 participants in toothbrushing (control) groups. All included trials reported the outcomes of plaque and gingivitis. Seven of the included trials were assessed as at unclear risk of bias and five were at high risk of bias.Flossing plus toothbrushing showed a statistically significant benefit compared to toothbrushing in reducing gingivitis at the three time points studied, the SMD being -0.36 (95% CI -0.66 to -0.05) at 1 month, SMD -0.41 (95% CI -0.68 to -0.14) at 3 months and SMD -0.72 (95% CI -1.09 to -0.35) at 6 months. The 1-month estimate translates to a 0.13 point reduction on a 0 to 3 point scale for Loe-Silness gingivitis index, and the 3 and 6 month results translate to 0.20 and 0.09 reductions on the same scale.Overall there is weak, very unreliable evidence which suggests that flossing plus toothbrushing may be associated with a small reduction in plaque at 1 or 3 months.None of the included trials reported data for the outcomes of caries, calculus, clinical attachment loss, or quality of life. There was some inconsistent reporting of adverse effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is some evidence from twelve studies that flossing in addition to toothbrushing reduces gingivitis compared to toothbrushing alone. There is weak, very unreliable evidence from 10 studies that flossing plus toothbrushing may be associated with a small reduction in plaque at 1 and 3 months. No studies reported the effectiveness of flossing plus toothbrushing for preventing dental caries.
PubMed: 31013348
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008829.pub3 -
Cureus Aug 2023If left untreated, periodontitis is a chronic, irreversible disease that can contribute to tooth loss. The primary objective of periodontal treatment is to arrest the... (Review)
Review
If left untreated, periodontitis is a chronic, irreversible disease that can contribute to tooth loss. The primary objective of periodontal treatment is to arrest the progression of the disease and restore the supporting structures of the tooth. Scaling and root planing (SRP) is a common non-surgical periodontal therapy (NSPT) used to reduce inflammation, pocket depth, and clinical attachment loss. However, NSPT has limitations, notably in difficult-to-access deep pockets and molar furcations. Deep pockets (greater than 4 mm) frequently retain calculus following NSPT. To attain direct access, surgical periodontal therapy (SPT) is recommended, particularly for pockets deeper than 5 mm. Enamel matrix derivative (EMD) has emerged in recent years as a tool for periodontal regeneration when used in conjunction with NSP for infrabony defects. EMD may also have advantageous effects when combined with NSPT. The purpose of this review is to provide a thorough understanding of the effects of EMD as an adjunct to NSPT. The databases Scopus, PubMed/MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Cochrane, and Embase were systematically searched to identify relevant studies on the benefits of EMD and its use as an adjunct to NSPT. Incorporating EMD into NSPT reduces chair time, and 60% of studies demonstrated considerable benefits compared to SRP alone, according to the findings. On the basis of research, it can be concluded that EMD can be used as an adjunct to NSPT, thereby reducing the amount of time spent in the operating chair. In some cases, it can, therefore, be regarded as an alternative to surgical treatment.
PubMed: 37719602
DOI: 10.7759/cureus.43530 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Dec 2018Many dentists or hygienists provide scaling and polishing for patients at regular intervals, even for those at low risk of developing periodontal disease. There is... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Many dentists or hygienists provide scaling and polishing for patients at regular intervals, even for those at low risk of developing periodontal disease. There is debate over the clinical and cost effectiveness of 'routine scaling and polishing' and the optimal frequency at which it should be provided for healthy adults.A 'routine scale and polish' treatment is defined as scaling or polishing, or both, of the crown and root surfaces of teeth to remove local irritational factors (plaque, calculus, debris and staining), which does not involve periodontal surgery or any form of adjunctive periodontal therapy such as the use of chemotherapeutic agents or root planing. Routine scale and polish treatments are typically provided in general dental practice settings. The technique may also be referred to as prophylaxis, professional mechanical plaque removal or periodontal instrumentation.This review updates a version published in 2013.
OBJECTIVES
1. To determine the beneficial and harmful effects of routine scaling and polishing for periodontal health.2. To determine the beneficial and harmful effects of routine scaling and polishing at different recall intervals for periodontal health.3. To determine the beneficial and harmful effects of routine scaling and polishing for periodontal health when the treatment is provided by dentists compared with dental care professionals (dental therapists or dental hygienists).
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 10 January 2018), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2017, Issue 12), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 10 January 2018), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 10 January 2018). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials of routine scale and polish treatments, with or without oral hygiene instruction, in healthy dentate adults without severe periodontitis. We excluded split-mouth trials.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors screened the results of the searches against inclusion criteria, extracted data and assessed risk of bias independently and in duplicate. We calculated mean differences (MDs) (or standardised mean differences (SMDs) when different scales were reported) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous data. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and 95% CIs for dichotomous data. We used a fixed-effect model for meta-analyses. We contacted study authors when necessary to obtain missing information. We rated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS
We included two studies with 1711 participants in the analyses. Both studies were conducted in UK general dental practices and involved adults without severe periodontitis who were regular attenders at dental appointments. One study measured outcomes at 24 months and the other at 36 months. Neither study measured adverse effects, changes in attachment level, tooth loss or halitosis.Comparison 1: routine scaling and polishing versus no scheduled scaling and polishingTwo studies compared planned, regular interval (six- and 12-monthly) scale and polish treatments versus no scheduled treatment. We found little or no difference between groups over a two- to three-year period for gingivitis, probing depths, oral health-related quality of life (all high-certainty evidence) and plaque (low-certainty evidence). The SMD for gingivitis when comparing six-monthly scale and polish treatment versus no scheduled treatment was -0.01 (95% CI -0.13 to 0.11; two trials, 1087 participants), and for 12-monthly scale and polish versus no scheduled treatment was -0.04 (95% CI -0.16 to 0.08; two trials, 1091 participants).Regular planned scale and polish treatments produced a small reduction in calculus levels over two to three years when compared with no scheduled scale and polish treatments (high-certainty evidence). The SMD for six-monthly scale and polish versus no scheduled treatment was -0.32 (95% CI -0.44 to -0.20; two trials, 1088 participants) and for 12-monthly scale and polish versus no scheduled treatment was -0.19 (95% CI -0.31 to -0.07; two trials, 1088 participants). The clinical importance of these small reductions is unclear.Participants' self-reported levels of oral cleanliness were higher when receiving six- and 12-monthly scale and polish treatments compared to no scheduled treatment, but the certainty of the evidence is low.Comparison 2: routine scaling and polishing at different recall intervalsTwo studies compared routine six-monthly scale and polish treatments versus 12-monthly treatments. We found little or no difference between groups over two to three years for the outcomes of gingivitis, probing depths, oral health-related quality of life (all high-certainty evidence) and plaque (low-certainty evidence). The SMD for gingivitis was 0.03 (95% CI -0.09 to 0.15; two trials, 1090 participants; I = 0%). Six- monthly scale and polish treatments produced a small reduction in calculus levels over a two- to three-year period when compared with 12-monthly treatments (SMD -0.13 (95% CI -0.25 to -0.01; 2 trials, 1086 participants; high-certainty evidence). The clinical importance of this small reduction is unclear.The comparative effects of six- and 12-monthly scale and polish treatments on patients' self-reported levels of oral cleanliness were uncertain (very low-certainty evidence).Comparison 3: routine scaling and polishing provided by dentists compared with dental care professionals (dental therapists or hygienists)No studies evaluated this comparison.The review findings in relation to costs were uncertain (very low-certainty evidence).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
For adults without severe periodontitis who regularly access routine dental care, routine scale and polish treatment makes little or no difference to gingivitis, probing depths and oral health-related quality of life over two to three years follow-up when compared with no scheduled scale and polish treatments (high-certainty evidence). There may also be little or no difference in plaque levels over two years (low-certainty evidence). Routine scaling and polishing reduces calculus levels compared with no routine scaling and polishing, with six-monthly treatments reducing calculus more than 12-monthly treatments over two to three years follow-up (high-certainty evidence), although the clinical importance of these small reductions is uncertain. Available evidence on the costs of the treatments is uncertain. The studies did not assess adverse effects.
Topics: Adult; Dental Calculus; Dental Plaque; Dental Polishing; Dental Prophylaxis; Dental Scaling; Gingivitis; Humans; Patient Satisfaction; Periodontal Diseases; Quality of Life; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors
PubMed: 30590875
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004625.pub5 -
BMC Oral Health Mar 2024Understanding the distinct proteomics profiles in dogs' oral biofluids enhances diagnostic and therapeutic insights for canine oral diseases, fostering cross-species...
BACKGROUND
Understanding the distinct proteomics profiles in dogs' oral biofluids enhances diagnostic and therapeutic insights for canine oral diseases, fostering cross-species translational research in dentistry and medicine. This study aimed to conduct a systematic review to investigate the similarities and differences between the oral biofluids' proteomics profile of dogs with and without oral diseases.
METHODS
PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus were searched with no restrictions on publication language or year to address the following focused question: "What is the proteome signature of healthy versus diseased (oral) dogs' biofluids?" Gene Ontology enrichment and the Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes pathway analyses of the most abundant proteins were performed. Moreover, protein-protein interaction analysis was conducted. The risk of bias (RoB) among the included studies was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal Checklist for Studies Reporting Prevalence Data.
RESULTS
In healthy dogs, the proteomic analysis identified 5,451 proteins, with 137 being the most abundant, predominantly associated with 'innate immune response'. Dogs with oral diseases displayed 6,470 proteins, with distinct associations: 'defense response to bacterium' (periodontal diseases), 'negative regulation of transcription' (dental calculus), and 'positive regulation of transcription' (oral tumors). Clustering revealed significant protein clusters in each case, emphasizing the diverse molecular profiles in health and oral diseases. Only six studies were provided to the JBI tool, as they encompassed case-control evaluations that compared healthy dogs to dogs with oral disease(s). All included studies were found to have low RoB (high quality).
CONCLUSION
Significant differences in the proteomics profiles of oral biofluids between dogs with and without oral diseases were found. The synergy of animal proteomics and bioinformatics offers a promising avenue for cross-species research, despite persistent challenges in result validation.
Topics: Animals; Dogs; Proteomics; Mass Spectrometry; Periodontal Diseases; Bacteria; Mouth Neoplasms
PubMed: 38519930
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-024-04096-x -
Annals of Palliative Medicine Jan 2021Periodontal disease is a chronic inflammatory disease that includes primarily gingivitis and periodontitis, caused by bacterial infection of the supporting structures of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
Periodontal disease is a chronic inflammatory disease that includes primarily gingivitis and periodontitis, caused by bacterial infection of the supporting structures of the teeth. For years, much attention has been diverted to periodontal disease among the elderly, not enough attention is paid to adolescents. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the epidemic trend of periodontal disease in adolescents in mainland China.
METHODS
We conducted a comprehensive literature search through PubMed, Embase, CNKI, Chongqing VIP database, Chinese Wan Fang Database, and CBM. A series of subgroup analyses were done to explore the epidemiological characteristics of periodontal disease (gender, location, age, survey year, and geographical distribution) with the help of related software.
RESULTS
Thirty studies were included in this study. The data extraction and analysis were from three indexes, including bleeding on probing (BOP), pocket depth (PD), and dental calculus (DC). The detection rates of BOP(+), PD ≥4 mm and DC(+) were 48.8% (95% CI: 36.2-61.4%), 1.0% (0.0-2.0%), and 49.8% (41.0-58.6%), respectively. There were significant differences for the prevalence of gingivitis both in gender and area: the prevalence was higher in males than that in females, and risk ratio was 1.04 (95% CI, 1.01-1.06); a lower prevalence in urban areas compared with rural areas, and the risk ratio was 0.90 (95% CI, 0.85-0.96).
CONCLUSIONS
This study shows a high prevalence of gingivitis among adolescents in China. Higher-quality epidemiological surveys with standard examination criteria are needed.
Topics: Adolescent; China; Female; Humans; Male; Periodontal Diseases; Prevalence; Surveys and Questionnaires
PubMed: 33474964
DOI: 10.21037/apm-20-1919