-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... 2003Bile acids have been used for treating primary sclerosing cholangitis, but their beneficial and harmful effects remain unclear. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Bile acids have been used for treating primary sclerosing cholangitis, but their beneficial and harmful effects remain unclear.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of bile acids for patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis.
SEARCH STRATEGY
We searched The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group's Trials Register, The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and The Chinese Biomedical Database generally from inception through to May 2002.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised clinical trials comparing any dose or duration of bile acids versus placebo, no intervention, or another intervention were included. Trials were included irrespective of blinding, language, or publication status.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two reviewers extracted the data. The methodological quality of the trials was evaluated with respect to the generation of the allocation sequence, allocation concealment, double blinding, and follow-up. The results were reported by intention-to-treat analysis. The outcomes were presented as relative risks (RR) or weighted mean differences (WMD), both with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
MAIN RESULTS
We identified six randomised clinical trials, all with low methodological quality. Patients were treated for three months to six years (median two years). Five trials (183 patients) compared ursodeoxycholic acid versus placebo, and one trial (40 patients) compared ursodeoxycholic acid versus no treatment. Ursodeoxycholic acid did not significantly reduce the risk of death (RR 0.86; 95% CI 0.27 to 2.73); treatment failure including liver transplantation, varices, ascites, and encephalopathy (RR 0.94; 95% CI 0.63 to 1.42); liver histological deterioration (RR 0.89; 95% CI 0.45 to 1.74); or liver cholangiographic deterioration (RR 0.43; 95% CI 0.18 to 1.02). Ursodeoxycholic acid significantly improved serum bilirubin (WMD -14.6 micro mol/litre; 95% CI -18.7 to -10.6), alkaline phosphatases (WMD -506 IU/litre; 95% CI -583 to -430), aspartate aminotransferase (WMD -46 IU/litre; 95% CI -77 to -16), and gamma-glutamyltranspeptidase (WMD -260 IU/litre; 95% CI -315 to -205), but not albumin (WMD -0.20 g/litre; 95% CI -1.91 to 1.50). Ursodeoxycholic acid was well tolerated.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS
Ursodeoxycholic acid leads to a significant improvement in liver biochemistry, but there is insufficient evidence to either support or refute its clinical effects in patients with primary sclerosing cholangitis. Large scale, high-quality randomised clinical trials are needed.
Topics: Cholagogues and Choleretics; Cholangitis, Sclerosing; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Taurodeoxycholic Acid; Ursodeoxycholic Acid
PubMed: 12804480
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003626 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2018Occupational irritant hand dermatitis (OIHD) causes significant functional impairment, disruption of work, and discomfort in the working population. Different preventive... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Occupational irritant hand dermatitis (OIHD) causes significant functional impairment, disruption of work, and discomfort in the working population. Different preventive measures such as protective gloves, barrier creams and moisturisers can be used, but it is not clear how effective these are. This is an update of a Cochrane review which was previously published in 2010.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of primary preventive interventions and strategies (physical and behavioural) for preventing OIHD in healthy people (who have no hand dermatitis) who work in occupations where the skin is at risk of damage due to contact with water, detergents, chemicals or other irritants, or from wearing gloves.
SEARCH METHODS
We updated our searches of the following databases to January 2018: the Cochrane Skin Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLlNE, and Embase. We also searched five trials registers and checked the bibliographies of included studies for further references to relevant trials. We handsearched two sets of conference proceedings.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included parallel and cross-over randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which examined the effectiveness of barrier creams, moisturisers, gloves, or educational interventions compared to no intervention for the primary prevention of OIHD under field conditions.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. The primary outcomes were signs and symptoms of OIHD developed during the trials, and the frequency of treatment discontinuation due to adverse effects.
MAIN RESULTS
We included nine RCTs involving 2888 participants without occupational irritant hand dermatitis (OIHD) at baseline. Six studies, including 1533 participants, investigated the effects of barrier creams, moisturisers, or both. Three studies, including 1355 participants, assessed the effectiveness of skin protection education on the prevention of OIHD. No studies were eligible that investigated the effects of protective gloves. Among each type of intervention, there was heterogeneity concerning the criteria for assessing signs and symptoms of OIHD, the products, and the occupations. Selection bias, performance bias, and reporting bias were generally unclear across all studies. The risk of detection bias was low in five studies and high in one study. The risk of other biases was low in four studies and high in two studies.The eligible trials involved a variety of participants, including: metal workers exposed to cutting fluids, dye and print factory workers, gut cleaners in swine slaughterhouses, cleaners and kitchen workers, nurse apprentices, hospital employees handling irritants, and hairdressing apprentices. All studies were undertaken at the respective work places. Study duration ranged from four weeks to three years. The participants' ages ranged from 16 to 67 years.Meta-analyses for barrier creams, moisturisers, a combination of both barrier creams and moisturisers, or skin protection education showed imprecise effects favouring the intervention. Twenty-nine per cent of participants who applied barrier creams developed signs of OIHD, compared to 33% of the controls, so the risk may be slightly reduced with this measure (risk ratio (RR) 0.87, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.72 to 1.06; 999 participants; 4 studies; low-quality evidence). However, this risk reduction may not be clinically important. There may be a clinically important protective effect with the use of moisturisers: in the intervention groups, 13% of participants developed symptoms of OIHD compared to 19% of the controls (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.46 to 1.09; 507 participants; 3 studies; low-quality evidence). Likewise, there may be a clinically important protective effect from using a combination of barrier creams and moisturisers: 8% of participants in the intervention group developed signs of OIHD, compared to 13% of the controls (RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.33 to 1.42; 474 participants; 2 studies; low-quality evidence). We are uncertain whether skin protection education reduces the risk of developing signs of OIHD (RR 0.76, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.08; 1355 participants; 3 studies; very low-quality evidence). Twenty-one per cent of participants who received skin protection education developed signs of OIHD, compared to 28% of the controls.None of the studies addressed the frequency of treatment discontinuation due to adverse effects of the products directly. However, in three studies of barrier creams, the reasons for withdrawal from the studies were unrelated to adverse effects. Likewise, in one study of moisturisers plus barrier creams, and in one study of skin protection education, reasons for dropout were unrelated to adverse effects. The remaining studies (one to two in each comparison) reported dropouts without stating how many of them may have been due to adverse reactions to the interventions. We judged the quality of this evidence as moderate, due to the indirectness of the results. The investigated interventions to prevent OIHD probably cause few or no serious adverse effects.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Moisturisers used alone or in combination with barrier creams may result in a clinically important protective effect, either in the long- or short-term, for the primary prevention of OIHD. Barrier creams alone may have slight protective effect, but this does not appear to be clinically important. The results for all of these comparisons were imprecise, and the low quality of the evidence means that our confidence in the effect estimates is limited. For skin protection education, the results varied substantially across the trials, the effect was imprecise, and the pooled risk reduction was not large enough to be clinically important. The very low quality of the evidence means that we are unsure as to whether skin protection education reduces the risk of developing OIHD. The interventions probably cause few or no serious adverse effects.We conclude that at present there is insufficient evidence to confidently assess the effectiveness of interventions used in the primary prevention of OIHD. This does not necessarily mean that current measures are ineffective. Even though the update of this review included larger studies of reasonable quality, there is still a need for trials which apply standardised measures for the detection of OIHD in order to determine the effectiveness of the different prevention strategies.
Topics: Dermatitis, Irritant; Dermatitis, Occupational; Emollients; Excipients; Gloves, Protective; Hand Dermatoses; Humans; Organic Chemicals; Patient Education as Topic; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Risk Reduction Behavior
PubMed: 29708265
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004414.pub3 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... 2003The viral hepatitides are common causes of liver diseases globally. Trials have assessed bile acids for patients with viral hepatitis, but no consensus was reached... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The viral hepatitides are common causes of liver diseases globally. Trials have assessed bile acids for patients with viral hepatitis, but no consensus was reached regarding their usefulness.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of bile acids for viral hepatitis.
SEARCH STRATEGY
Searches were performed of the trial registers of The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group (September 2002), The Cochrane Library (Issue 2, 2002), MEDLINE (September 2002), EMBASE (September 2002), and The Chinese Biomedical Database (April 2001).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised clinical trials comparing any dose or duration of bile acids versus placebo or no intervention for viral hepatitis were included, irrespective of language, publication status, or blinding.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two reviewers extracted the data independently. The methodological quality of the trials was evaluated with respect to generation of the allocation sequence, allocation concealment, double blinding, and follow-up. The outcomes were presented as relative risks (RR) or weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 27 randomised trials of bile acids for hepatitis B or C; none were of high methodological quality. In one trial, ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) versus placebo for acute hepatitis B significantly reduced the risk of hepatitis B surface antigen positivity at the end of treatment and serum HBV DNA level at the end of follow-up. In another trial, UDCA versus no intervention for chronic hepatitis B significantly reduced the risk of having abnormal serum transaminase activities at the end of treatment. Twenty-five trials compared bile acids (21 trials UDCA; four trials tauro-UDCA) versus placebo or no intervention with or without co-interventions for chronic hepatitis C. Bile acids did not significantly reduce the risk of having detectable serum HCV RNA (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.07), cirrhosis, or portal and periportal inflammation score at the end of treatment. Bile acids significantly decreased the risk of having abnormal serum alanine aminotransferase activity at the end of treatment (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.90) and follow-up (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.98). Bile acids significantly increased the Knodell score (WMD 0.20, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.31) at the end of treatment. No severe adverse events were reported. We did not identify trials including patients with hepatitis A, acute C, D, or E.
REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS
Bile acids lead to a significant improvement in serum transaminase activities in hepatitis B and C. There is insufficient evidence either to support or to refute effects on viral markers, mortality, incidence of cirrhosis, or liver histology. Trials with high methodological quality are required.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Hepatitis B, Chronic; Hepatitis C, Chronic; Hepatitis, Viral, Human; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Taurochenodeoxycholic Acid; Ursodeoxycholic Acid
PubMed: 12804455
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003181 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2007Trials have assessed bile acids for patients with viral hepatitis, but no consensus has been reached regarding their usefulness. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Trials have assessed bile acids for patients with viral hepatitis, but no consensus has been reached regarding their usefulness.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the beneficial and harmful effects of bile acids for viral hepatitis.
SEARCH STRATEGY
Searches were performed in The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register (July 2007), The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2007), MEDLINE (July 2007), EMBASE (July 2007), Science Citation Index Expanded (July 2007), and Chinese Biomedical Database (July 2007).
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised clinical trials comparing any dose or duration of bile acids versus placebo or no intervention for viral hepatitis were included, irrespective of language, publication status, or blinding. Co-interventions were allowed in the included randomised clinical trials.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two authors extracted the data independently. The methodological quality of the trials was evaluated with respect to generation of the allocation sequence, allocation concealment, double blinding, and follow-up. The outcomes were presented as relative risks (RR) or weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI).
MAIN RESULTS
We identified 29 randomised trials of bile acids for hepatitis B or C; none were of high methodological quality. We were unable to extract data from two trials. In one trial, ursodeoxycholic acid (UDCA) versus placebo for acute hepatitis B significantly reduced the risk of hepatitis B surface antigen positivity at the end of treatment and serum HBV DNA level at the end of follow-up. In another trial, UDCA versus no intervention for chronic hepatitis B significantly reduced the risk of having abnormal serum transaminase activities at the end of treatment. Twenty-five trials compared bile acids (21 trials UDCA; four trials tauro-UDCA) versus placebo or no intervention with or without co-interventions for chronic hepatitis C. Bile acids did not significantly reduce the risk of having detectable serum HCV RNA (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.07), cirrhosis, or portal and periportal inflammation score at the end of treatment. Bile acids significantly decreased the risk of having abnormal serum alanine aminotransferase activity at the end of treatment (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.76 to 0.90) and follow-up (RR 0.91, 95% CI 0.85 to 0.98). Bile acids significantly increased the Knodell score (WMD 0.20, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.31) at the end of treatment. No severe adverse events were reported. We did not identify trials including patients with hepatitis A, acute hepatitis C, hepatitis D, or hepatitis E.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Bile acids lead to a significant improvement in serum transaminase activities in hepatitis B and C but have no effects on the clearance of virus. There is insufficient evidence either to support or to refute effects on long-term outcomes including hepatocellular carcinoma, hepatic decompensation, and liver related mortality. Randomised trials with high methodological quality are required before clinical use is considered.
Topics: Antiviral Agents; Hepatitis B, Chronic; Hepatitis C, Chronic; Hepatitis, Viral, Human; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Taurochenodeoxycholic Acid; Ursodeoxycholic Acid
PubMed: 17943781
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003181.pub2 -
Environmental Science and Pollution... Feb 2017Diverse industries like detergents, resins and polymers, hair dyes, intravaginal spermicides, and pesticides produce endocrine disruptor (ED)-containing wastewaters that... (Review)
Review
Diverse industries like detergents, resins and polymers, hair dyes, intravaginal spermicides, and pesticides produce endocrine disruptor (ED)-containing wastewaters that have hazardous effects on the environment and public health. Nonylphenol (NP) is a chemical substance that consists of a phenolic group and an attached lipophilic linear nonyl chain. NP has weak estrogenic activity and affects estrogen receptor (ER), as well as induces male infertility via a negative impact on spermatogenesis and sperm quality. The aim of this study was to comprehensively review all available literature about the side effects of NP on the male genital system. We systematically searched Scopus and PubMed using MeSH terms that include "Organic Chemicals," "Infertility," "Infertility, Male," "Nonylphenol", ("Infertility, Male"[Mesh]) OR "Nonylphenol" [Supplementary Concept]) OR "Prostate"[Mesh]) OR "Spermatozoa"[Mesh]) OR "Sertoli Cells"[Mesh]) OR "Leydig Cells"[Mesh] OR "Male accessory gland" OR "Epididym" OR "Reproductive toxicity"), and all other possible combinations from January 1, 1970, to September 15, 2016, with language limit. The initial search identified 117,742 potentially eligible studies, of which 33 met the established inclusion criteria and were included in the analysis. Thirty-three selected studies include animal model (n = 18), cell line (n = 15), human model (n = 1), morphology (n = 13), sperm quality (n = 17), and toxicity (n = 14). This review highlighted the evidence for the ED effect of NP that acts through interference with ER, discussing male reproductive tract perturbations. We critically discuss the available evidence on the effect of NP on sperm quality (such as motility, viability, sperm count, and sperm concentration), dramatic morphological changes (such as change of weights of testes and epididymis), and biochemical changes related to oxidative stress in testes. Finally, it is important to take caution with the continued use of NP that disrupts male reproductive health.
Topics: Animals; Fertility; Humans; Infertility, Male; Male; Phenols; Sperm Count; Spermatogenesis; Spermatozoa
PubMed: 27826822
DOI: 10.1007/s11356-016-7960-y -
Clinical Oral Investigations Mar 2022To systematically review the literature on the efficacy of interdental cleaning devices (ICDs) used with active substances, as adjuncts to toothbrushing, in comparison... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
To systematically review the literature on the efficacy of interdental cleaning devices (ICDs) used with active substances, as adjuncts to toothbrushing, in comparison with toothbrushing alone or with ICDs without active substances.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Searches for randomized clinical trials were performed in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane (CENTRAL), and Web of Science. Two independent researchers performed study selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment; a third one resolved any disagreement. Meta-analysis was not feasible, and a narrative approach was used to synthesize the evidence.
RESULTS
Seven studies were included. Dental floss with chlorhexidine was used in five studies, whereas interdental brushes with chlorhexidine and cetylpyridinium chloride were used in one study each. ICDs with active substances resulted in significantly higher antiplaque and antigingivitis efficacies than without ICDs (n = 3). ICDs with and without active substances demonstrated contrasting results. For this comparison, six studies were included for each outcome. Significantly higher antigingivitis efficacy of ICDs with active substances was noted in four studies, whereas significantly higher antiplaque efficacy of ICDs with active substances was reported in three studies. All comparisons demonstrated a very low certainty of evidence.
CONCLUSIONS
There is no robust evidence for the additional clinical efficacy of ICDs with active substances regarding their antiplaque and antigingivitis efficacies. These devices may have additional clinical efficacy when compared with the absence of interproximal hygiene.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
The use of ICDs helps maintain or achieve periodontal health. However, the adjunct use of active substances may not provide additional benefits.
Topics: Cetylpyridinium; Dental Devices, Home Care; Dental Plaque; Gingivitis; Humans; Toothbrushing
PubMed: 34999990
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-021-04327-3 -
BMC Geriatrics Jan 2017For immobile patients, a body wash in bed is sometimes the only bathing option. Traditionally, the bed bath is performed with water and soap. However, alternatives are... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
For immobile patients, a body wash in bed is sometimes the only bathing option. Traditionally, the bed bath is performed with water and soap. However, alternatives are increasingly used in health care. Washing without water is one such alternative that has been claimed to offer several advantages, such as improved hygiene and skin condition. This systematic review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the evidence on outcomes of the washing without water concept compared to the traditional bed bath.
METHODS
Controlled trials about washing without water outcomes published after 1994 were collected by means of a systematic literature search in CINAHL, Embase, MEDLINE, and PUBMED at the 25th of February, 2016. Additionally, references and citations were searched and experts contacted. Studies were eligible if (1) the study designs included outcomes of washing without water products developed for the full body wash compared to the traditional bed bath, and (2) they were controlled trials. Two researchers independently used a standardized quality checklist to assess the methodological quality of the eligible studies. Finally, outcomes were categorized in (1) physiological outcomes related to hygiene and skin condition, (2) stakeholder-related outcomes, and (3) organizational outcomes in the data synthesis.
RESULTS
Out of 33 potentially relevant articles subjected to full text screening, six studies met the eligibility criteria. Only two studies (of the same research group) were considered of high quality. The results of these high quality studies show that washing without water performed better than the traditional bed bath regarding skin abnormalities and bathing completeness. No differences between washing without water and the traditional bed bath were found for outcomes related to significant skin lesions, resistance during bathing and costs in the studies of high quality.
CONCLUSIONS
There is limited moderate to high quality evidence that washing without water is not inferior to the traditional bed bath. Future research on washing without water is needed and should pay special attention to costs, hygiene, and to stakeholder-related outcomes, such as experiences and value perceptions of patients, nursing staff and family.
Topics: Baths; Disabled Persons; Humans; Hygiene; Sanitation; Soaps; Water
PubMed: 28118815
DOI: 10.1186/s12877-017-0425-4 -
Journal of Clinical Nursing Aug 2008The aim of this study was to use a Cochrane systematic review process to explore the effect of wound cleansing solutions and techniques on pressure ulcer healing. (Review)
Review
AIM
The aim of this study was to use a Cochrane systematic review process to explore the effect of wound cleansing solutions and techniques on pressure ulcer healing.
BACKGROUND
Pressure ulcers impose a significant financial burden on health care systems and negatively affect the quality of life. Wound cleansing is an important component of pressure ulcer care; however, there is uncertainty regarding best practice.
DESIGN
Systematic review.
METHODS
The Specialised Trials Register of the Cochrane Wounds Group, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and bibliographies of relevant publications were searched. Drug companies and experts in the field were also contacted. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing wound cleansing with no wound cleansing, or different wound cleansing solutions, or different cleansing techniques, were eligible for inclusion. For dichotomous outcomes, relative risk (RR) plus 95% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated; for continuous outcomes, weighted mean difference plus 95% CI were calculated. Meta analysis was not conducted because of the small number of diverse RCTs identified.
RESULTS
No studies compared cleansing with no cleansing. A statistically significant improvement in healing occurred for wounds cleansed with saline spray containing Aloe vera, silver chloride and decyl glucoside (Vulnopur) compared with isotonic saline (p = 0.025). No statistically significant change in healing was seen when water was compared with saline (RR 3.00, 95% CI 0.21, 41.89). No statistically significant change in healing was seen for ulcers cleansed with, or without, a whirlpool (RR 2.10, 95% CI 0.93-4.76).
CONCLUSION
There is little trial evidence to support the use of any particular wound cleansing solution or technique for pressure ulcers. Relevance to clinical practice. No firm recommendations for ways of cleansing pressure ulcers in clinical practice can be made, the lack of RCT evidence should be a concern for health care providers.
Topics: Aloe; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Clinical Nursing Research; Data Collection; Data Interpretation, Statistical; Detergents; Evidence-Based Medicine; Glucosides; Humans; Hydrotherapy; Infection Control; Phytotherapy; Pressure Ulcer; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Research Design; Silver Compounds; Skin Care; Sodium Chloride; Sodium Hypochlorite; Therapeutic Irrigation; Treatment Outcome; Wound Healing
PubMed: 18705777
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2702.2008.02381.x -
International Journal of Nursing... Feb 2004The use of alcohol has been proposed as an option for hand hygiene. A systematic review was conducted to evaluate the clinical evidence supporting the use of... (Review)
Review
The use of alcohol has been proposed as an option for hand hygiene. A systematic review was conducted to evaluate the clinical evidence supporting the use of alcohol-based solutions in hospitals as an option for hand hygiene. Studies published between January 1992 and April 2002 in English and Thai, related to the effectiveness of alcohol-based solutions, were reviewed. The databases searched included Medline, DARE, CINAHL and Dissertation Abstracts International. All studies were assessed as having adequate methodological quality. Results of this systematic review supported that alcohol-based hand rubbing removes microorganisms effectively, requires less time and irritates hands less often than does handwashing with soap or other antiseptic agents and water. Furthermore, the availability of bedside alcohol-based solutions increases compliance with hand hygiene among health care workers.
Topics: Alcohols; Cross Infection; Disinfectants; Evidence-Based Medicine; Guidelines as Topic; Hand; Hand Disinfection; Health Personnel; Humans; Soaps; Solutions; Time Factors
PubMed: 14764017
DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-172x.2003.00457.x -
Journal of the American Dental... Dec 2006The author conducted a systematic review of the literature to evaluate the efficacy of antigingivitis and antiplaque products in six-month trials. He searched electronic... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND AND METHODS
The author conducted a systematic review of the literature to evaluate the efficacy of antigingivitis and antiplaque products in six-month trials. He searched electronic databases for six-month randomized clinical studies that evaluated both antiplaque and antigingivitis properties of dentifrices or mouthrinses. In addition, the author solicited unpublished studies from manufacturers.
RESULTS
Seventeen studies support the antiplaque, antigingivitis effects of dentifrices containing 0.30 percent triclosan, 2.0 percent Gantrez copolymer. There was no evidence of efficacy for triclosan products containing either soluble pyrophosphate or zinc citrate. Dentifrices with stannous fluoride had statistically significant, but marginally clinically significant, evidence of an antiplaque effect; however, there was both a statistically and clinically significant antigingivitis effect. The largest body of studies (21 studies) supported the efficacy of mouthrinses with essential oils. A smaller body of studies (seven) supported a strong antiplaque, antigingivitis effect of mouthrinses with 0.12 percent chlorhexidine. Results for mouthrinses with cetylpyridinium chloride varied and depended on the product's formula.
CONCLUSIONS
The studies in this systematic review provide strong evidence of the antiplaque, antigingivitis effects of multiple agents. These results support the use of these agents as part of a typical oral hygiene regimen.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Cetylpyridinium; Chlorhexidine; Dental Plaque; Dentifrices; Drug Combinations; Gingivitis; Humans; Maleates; Mouthwashes; Oils, Volatile; Oral Hygiene; Polyvinyls; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tin Fluorides; Triclosan
PubMed: 17138709
DOI: 10.14219/jada.archive.2006.0110