-
BMC Oral Health Apr 2019The plant Salvadora persica (miswak) has a long history of use in oral hygiene. Associations between the use of Salvadora persica and decreased oral bacteria numbers and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The plant Salvadora persica (miswak) has a long history of use in oral hygiene. Associations between the use of Salvadora persica and decreased oral bacteria numbers and plaque scores have been reported. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the ability of Salvadora persica mouthrinses to reduce plaque/cariogenic bacteria, in comparison to that of chlorhexidine and/or placebo rinses.
METHODS
A comprehensive literature search for clinical trials reporting the use of Salvadora persica rinses as an antibacterial and/or antiplaque agent in comparison with chlorhexidine and/or placebo rinses was conducted, with no restriction to language. MEDLINE-PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Wiley Online Library, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar databases were searched to include all articles published up to December 2018. Based on inclusion/exclusion criteria, data were extracted from the identified reports by two independent reviewers. The primary and secondary outcomes measured from the eligible studies were mean plaque scores and mean cariogenic bacterial counts, respectively. Risk of bias of these studies was assessed. A statistical test of homogeneity was used to determine if the results of the separate studies could be combined. Based on the chi-square test, an inconsistency coefficient was computed (I statistic). Sensitivity analyses using subgroups and homogeneity evaluation were conducted.
RESULTS
A total of 1135 potentially eligible articles were identified, of which 19 were eventually included in the qualitative analysis whereas 18 were included in the quantitative meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed that Salvadora persica rinses exhibited strong antiplaque effects (P < 0.00001, MD: 0.46, and 95% CI: 0.29 to 0.63). In addition, it had statistically significant anti-streptococcal (P < 0.0001, MD: -1.42, and 95% CI: -2.08 to - 0.76) and anti-lactobacilli effects (P < 0.00001, MD: -1.12, and 95% CI: -1.45 to - 0.79) when compared to placebo. However, its effects were inferior compared to those by chlorhexidine rinse (P = 0.04, MD: 0.19, and 95% CI: 0.01 to 0.37). Subgroup analyses yielded results similar to those prior to subgrouping.
CONCLUSION
The use of Salvadora persica extract was associated with a significant reduction in the plaque score and cariogenic bacterial count. Although, this reduction was lower than that achieved with the gold standard chlorhexidine mouthwash, Salvadora persica-containing rinse could be considered as a suitable oral hygiene alternative for use in individuals of all ages, socioeconomic backgrounds, and health conditions especially as a long-term measure due to its efficacy, safety, availability, cost-effectiveness, and ease of use.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents; Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Bacterial Infections; Chlorhexidine; Dental Caries; Dental Plaque; Humans; Microbial Sensitivity Tests; Mouthwashes; Oral Hygiene; Plant Extracts; Salvadoraceae
PubMed: 31029127
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-019-0741-5 -
TheScientificWorldJournal 2019Passive Ultrasonic Irrigation (PUI) represents one of the most used systems to improve the endodontic irrigants activity. PUI acts increasing the reaction rate of NaOCl,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Passive Ultrasonic Irrigation (PUI) represents one of the most used systems to improve the endodontic irrigants activity. PUI acts increasing the reaction rate of NaOCl, with an increase of dentinal debris and smear layer removal. There is a stronger shear stress and a vapor lock reduction. Aim of this systematic review was to figure out the effects of the PUI on the vapor lock removal, during irrigation. Literature research has been carried out by two reviewers, consulting online databases such as PubMed, EBSCO, and Google Scholar, using keywords like Vapor Lock, Vapour Lock, and Vapor Lock Endodontic. The articles list has been screened based on titles and abstracts, applying eligibility and inclusion criteria. The three articles were eligible for quantitative and statistical analysis, by using RevManager Software Version 5.3. Results show statistical heterogeneity (P=0.08; I index=61%) in the vapor lock elimination between the use of PUI and PPI, with an overall Odds Ratio=0.08, CI=95% [0.03;0.25]. PUI resulted to be a useful technique to improve NaOCl activity for vapor lock removal, despite PPI alone using a needle.
Topics: Humans; Odds Ratio; Root Canal Irrigants; Root Canal Preparation; Smear Layer; Therapeutic Irrigation; Ultrasonic Therapy
PubMed: 30992694
DOI: 10.1155/2019/6765349 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2019Dental caries (tooth decay) and periodontal diseases (gingivitis and periodontitis) affect the majority of people worldwide, and treatment costs place a significant...
BACKGROUND
Dental caries (tooth decay) and periodontal diseases (gingivitis and periodontitis) affect the majority of people worldwide, and treatment costs place a significant burden on health services. Decay and gum disease can cause pain, eating and speaking difficulties, low self-esteem, and even tooth loss and the need for surgery. As dental plaque is the primary cause, self-administered daily mechanical disruption and removal of plaque is important for oral health. Toothbrushing can remove supragingival plaque on the facial and lingual/palatal surfaces, but special devices (such as floss, brushes, sticks, and irrigators) are often recommended to reach into the interdental area.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness of interdental cleaning devices used at home, in addition to toothbrushing, compared with toothbrushing alone, for preventing and controlling periodontal diseases, caries, and plaque. A secondary objective was to compare different interdental cleaning devices with each other.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 16 January 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2018, Issue 12), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 16 January 2019), Embase Ovid (1980 to 16 January 2019) and CINAHL EBSCO (1937 to 16 January 2019). 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.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared toothbrushing and a home-use interdental cleaning device versus toothbrushing alone or with another device (minimum duration four weeks).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently screened searches, selected studies, extracted data, assessed studies' risk of bias, and assessed evidence certainty as high, moderate, low or very low, according to GRADE. We extracted indices measured on interproximal surfaces, where possible. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses, using mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 35 RCTs (3929 randomised adult participants). Studies were at high risk of performance bias as blinding of participants was not possible. Only two studies were otherwise at low risk of bias. Many participants had a low level of baseline gingival inflammation.Studies evaluated the following devices plus toothbrushing versus toothbrushing: floss (15 trials), interdental brushes (2 trials), wooden cleaning sticks (2 trials), rubber/elastomeric cleaning sticks (2 trials), oral irrigators (5 trials). Four devices were compared with floss: interdental brushes (9 trials), wooden cleaning sticks (3 trials), rubber/elastomeric cleaning sticks (9 trials) and oral irrigators (2 trials). Another comparison was rubber/elastomeric cleaning sticks versus interdental brushes (3 trials).No trials assessed interproximal caries, and most did not assess periodontitis. Gingivitis was measured by indices (most commonly, Löe-Silness, 0 to 3 scale) and by proportion of bleeding sites. Plaque was measured by indices, most often Quigley-Hein (0 to 5).
PRIMARY OBJECTIVE
comparisons against toothbrushing aloneLow-certainty evidence suggested that flossing, in addition to toothbrushing, may reduce gingivitis (measured by gingival index (GI)) at one month (SMD -0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.12 to -0.04; 8 trials, 585 participants), three months or six months. The results for proportion of bleeding sites and plaque were inconsistent (very low-certainty evidence).Very low-certainty evidence suggested that using an interdental brush, plus toothbrushing, may reduce gingivitis (measured by GI) at one month (MD -0.53, 95% CI -0.83 to -0.23; 1 trial, 62 participants), though there was no clear difference in bleeding sites (MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.03; 1 trial, 31 participants). Low-certainty evidence suggested interdental brushes may reduce plaque more than toothbrushing alone (SMD -1.07, 95% CI -1.51 to -0.63; 2 trials, 93 participants).Very low-certainty evidence suggested that using wooden cleaning sticks, plus toothbrushing, may reduce bleeding sites at three months (MD -0.25, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.13; 1 trial, 24 participants), but not plaque (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.07).Very low-certainty evidence suggested that using rubber/elastomeric interdental cleaning sticks, plus toothbrushing, may reduce plaque at one month (MD -0.22, 95% CI -0.41 to -0.03), but this was not found for gingivitis (GI MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.21; 1 trial, 12 participants; bleeding MD 0.07, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.01; 1 trial, 30 participants).Very-low certainty evidence suggested oral irrigators may reduce gingivitis measured by GI at one month (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.06; 4 trials, 380 participants), but not at three or six months. Low-certainty evidence suggested that oral irrigators did not reduce bleeding sites at one month (MD -0.00, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.06; 2 trials, 126 participants) or three months, or plaque at one month (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.10; 3 trials, 235 participants), three months or six months, more than toothbrushing alone.
SECONDARY OBJECTIVE
comparisons between devicesLow-certainty evidence suggested interdental brushes may reduce gingivitis more than floss at one and three months, but did not show a difference for periodontitis measured by probing pocket depth. Evidence for plaque was inconsistent.Low- to very low-certainty evidence suggested oral irrigation may reduce gingivitis at one month compared to flossing, but very low-certainty evidence did not suggest a difference between devices for plaque.Very low-certainty evidence for interdental brushes or flossing versus interdental cleaning sticks did not demonstrate superiority of either intervention.Adverse eventsStudies that measured adverse events found no severe events caused by devices, and no evidence of differences between study groups in minor effects such as gingival irritation.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Using floss or interdental brushes in addition to toothbrushing may reduce gingivitis or plaque, or both, more than toothbrushing alone. Interdental brushes may be more effective than floss. Available evidence for tooth cleaning sticks and oral irrigators is limited and inconsistent. Outcomes were mostly measured in the short term and participants in most studies had a low level of baseline gingival inflammation. Overall, the evidence was low to very low-certainty, and the effect sizes observed may not be clinically important. Future trials should report participant periodontal status according to the new periodontal diseases classification, and last long enough to measure interproximal caries and periodontitis.
Topics: Dental Caries; Dental Devices, Home Care; Dental Plaque; Gingivitis; Humans; Oral Health; Periodontal Diseases; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 30968949
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012018.pub2 -
Medicina Oral, Patologia Oral Y Cirugia... Mar 2019The aim of this present article was to evaluate the scientific evidence on the efficacy of daily hygiene and professional prophylaxis for treatment of desquamative... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
The aim of this present article was to evaluate the scientific evidence on the efficacy of daily hygiene and professional prophylaxis for treatment of desquamative gingivitis.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
The present systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA protocol. Searches were carried out in Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science and Cochrane Library up to July 2018, randomized clinical trials and cohort studies on desquamative gingivitis (DG), and oral diseases joined to DG.
RESULTS
After screening, we found that nine publications met the eligibility criteria eight cohort studies and one randomized control trial. The diagnosis of the diseases corresponded to oral lichen planus (n=185), mucous membrane pemphigoid (n=13); plasma cell gingivitits (n=15) and pemphigus vulgar (n=11). The follow-up was between a week and a year after instructing patients. Dental daily hygiene and professional prophylaxis, at least with supragingival scaling and polishing have significantly improved the extension of the lesion and reduced the activity of DG, and gingival bleeding in all patients. Furthermore, these techniques have also reduced pain and gingival plaque.
CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion the studies presented support the efficacy of maintaining personal and professional oral hygiene in patients with GD, reducing the clinical signs of the disease, regardless of its pathogenesis.
Topics: Biopsy; Databases, Factual; Dental Plaque; Dental Plaque Index; Dental Polishing; Dental Prophylaxis; Dental Scaling; Gingivitis; Humans; Lichen Planus, Oral; Oral Hygiene; Pemphigoid, Benign Mucous Membrane; Pemphigus; Periodontal Index
PubMed: 30818305
DOI: 10.4317/medoral.22782 -
International Journal of Dental Hygiene May 2019To test the efficacy of a dentifrice containing baking soda (BS), compared with dentifrice without BS for controlling plaque and gingivitis. (Comparative Study)
Comparative Study
OBJECTIVE
To test the efficacy of a dentifrice containing baking soda (BS), compared with dentifrice without BS for controlling plaque and gingivitis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
MEDLINE-PubMed and Cochrane-CENTRAL were searched. The inclusion criteria were randomized controlled clinical trials including healthy participants aged 18 years or older. Studies were selected that compared the effect of toothbrushing with a dentifrice with and without BS on the clinical parameters of plaque and gingivitis. Data were extracted from the selected studies, and a meta-analysis was performed.
RESULTS
The search retrieved 21 eligible publications. Among these papers, 43 comparisons were provided, with 23 involving a single-use design and 20 being evaluations with a follow-up. Negative controls were found, or positive controls for which various active ingredients had been used. The included studies showed a moderate overall potential risk of bias and considerable heterogeneity. The meta-analysis of plaque scores from the single-brushing experiments showed that BS dentifrice (BS-DF) was associated with significantly better outcomes than the negative control dentifrices (DiffM -0.20; P < 0.0001; 95% CI: [-0.27; -0.12]) or the positive control dentifrices (DiffM -0.18; P < 0.0001; 95% CI: [-0.24; -0.12]). This finding was only confirmed in studies that used a follow-up design as compared to a negative control (DiffM -0.19; P = 0.01; 95% CI: [-0.34; -0.04]). The indices of gingival bleeding also improved when the comparison was a negative control (DiffM -0.08; P = 0.02; 95% CI: [-0.16; -0.01] and (DiffM -0.13; P < 0.001; 95% CI: [-0.18; -0.08]. However, for the gingival index scores, the meta-analysis did not reveal any significant differences.
CONCLUSION
BS-DF showed promising results with respect to plaque removal in single-use studies. However, the finding was partially substantiated in follow-up studies. Studies that assessed bleeding scores indicated that a small reduction can be expected from BS, relative to a control product.
Topics: Databases, Bibliographic; Dental Plaque; Dentifrices; Gingivitis; Humans; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Sodium Bicarbonate; Toothbrushing
PubMed: 30734996
DOI: 10.1111/idh.12390 -
Angiology Jul 2019There is some evidence that periodontitis increases the risk of atherothrombosis. Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a cardiovascular disease with specific risk factors...
There is some evidence that periodontitis increases the risk of atherothrombosis. Abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) is a cardiovascular disease with specific risk factors and physiopathological mechanisms that can lead to rupture in the absence of treatment. The aim of the present systematic review was to explore the influence of periodontitis on the progression of AAAs as a specific disease. A systematic search in PubMed/MEDLINE and Embase databases was performed. Human and animal studies exploring the influence of periodontal pathogens on the progression of AAA were considered for inclusion. After systematic screening, 5 articles were included in the review. Due to the heterogeneity of the selected studies, a meta-analysis could not be performed. The descriptive analyses of the studies emphasized that periodontal pathogens or their by-products contribute to systemic and local innate immunity likely to be associated with AAA physiopathology. Periodontitis seems to play a role in the development and progression of AAA. The present systematic review suggests that the presence of periodontal bacteria in the bloodstream or in situ in the vascular lesion is a risk associated with aneurysmal disease progression.
Topics: Animals; Aortic Aneurysm, Abdominal; Dental Plaque; Disease Progression; Host-Pathogen Interactions; Humans; Immunity, Innate; Periodontitis; Porphyromonas gingivalis; Prognosis; Risk Factors
PubMed: 30596254
DOI: 10.1177/0003319718821243 -
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 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2018Effective oral hygiene measures carried out on a regular basis are vital to maintain good oral health. One-to-one oral hygiene advice (OHA) within the dental setting is...
BACKGROUND
Effective oral hygiene measures carried out on a regular basis are vital to maintain good oral health. One-to-one oral hygiene advice (OHA) within the dental setting is often provided as a means to motivate individuals and to help achieve improved levels of oral health. However, it is unclear if one-to-one OHA in a dental setting is effective in improving oral health and what method(s) might be most effective and efficient.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of one-to-one OHA, provided by a member of the dental team within the dental setting, on patients' oral health, hygiene, behaviour, and attitudes compared to no advice or advice in a different format.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 10 November 2017); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2017, Issue 10) in the Cochrane Library (searched 10 November 2017); MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 10 November 2017); and Embase Ovid (1980 to 10 November 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were also searched for ongoing trials (10 November 2017). No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases. Reference lists of relevant articles and previously published systematic reviews were handsearched. The authors of eligible trials were contacted, where feasible, to identify any unpublished work.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials assessing the effects of one-to-one OHA delivered by a dental care professional in a dental care setting with a minimum of 8 weeks follow-up. We included healthy participants or participants who had a well-defined medical condition.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors carried out selection of studies, data extraction and risk of bias independently and in duplicate. Consensus was achieved by discussion, or involvement of a third review author if required.
MAIN RESULTS
Nineteen studies met the criteria for inclusion in the review with data available for a total of 4232 participants. The included studies reported a wide variety of interventions, study populations, clinical outcomes and outcome measures. There was substantial clinical heterogeneity amongst the studies and it was not deemed appropriate to pool data in a meta-analysis. We summarised data by categorising similar interventions into comparison groups.Comparison 1: Any form of one-to-one OHA versus no OHAFour studies compared any form of one-to-one OHA versus no OHA.Two studies reported the outcome of gingivitis. Although one small study had contradictory results at 3 months and 6 months, the other study showed very low-quality evidence of a benefit for OHA at all time points (very low-quality evidence).The same two studies reported the outcome of plaque. There was low-quality evidence that these interventions showed a benefit for OHA in plaque reduction at all time points.Two studies reported the outcome of dental caries at 6 months and 12 months respectively. There was very low-quality evidence of a benefit for OHA at 12 months.Comparison 2: Personalised one-to-one OHA versus routine one-to-one OHAFour studies compared personalised OHA versus routine OHA.There was little evidence available that any of these interventions demonstrated a difference on the outcomes of gingivitis, plaque or dental caries (very low quality).Comparison 3: Self-management versus professional OHAFive trials compared some form of self-management with some form of professional OHA.There was little evidence available that any of these interventions demonstrated a difference on the outcomes of gingivitis or plaque (very low quality). None of the studies measured dental caries.Comparison 4: Enhanced one-to-one OHA versus one-to-one OHASeven trials compared some form of enhanced OHA with some form of routine OHA.There was little evidence available that any of these interventions demonstrated a difference on the outcomes of gingivitis, plaque or dental caries (very low quality).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was insufficient high-quality evidence to recommend any specific one-to-one OHA method as being effective in improving oral health or being more effective than any other method. Further high-quality randomised controlled trials are required to determine the most effective, efficient method of one-to-one OHA for oral health maintenance and improvement. The design of such trials should be cognisant of the limitations of the available evidence presented in this Cochrane Review.
Topics: Adult; Child; Dental Care; Dental Caries; Dental Offices; Dental Plaque; Gingivitis; Humans; Oral Health; Oral Hygiene; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Self Care
PubMed: 30380139
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007447.pub2 -
International Journal of Dental Hygiene Feb 2019The aim of this systematic review was to establish in studies with human participants the effect of a regular fluoride dentifrice compared to water or saline on dental... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this systematic review was to establish in studies with human participants the effect of a regular fluoride dentifrice compared to water or saline on dental plaque inhibition.
METHODS
MEDLINE-PubMed, Cochrane-CENTRAL, EMBASE and other electronic databases were searched, up to April 2018. The inclusion criteria were controlled clinical trials among participants aged ≥18 years with good general health. Papers that evaluated the effect of dentifrice slurry compared with water or saline on plaque regrowth during a 4-day nonbrushing period were included. Data were extracted from the eligible studies, the risk of bias was assessed, and a meta-analysis was performed where feasible.
RESULT
The search retrieved eight eligible publications including 25 comparisons. The estimated potential risk of bias was low for all studies. Based on three different indices, overall plaque regrowth was significantly (P < 0.01) inhibited for 0.25 or more by the use of a dentifrice slurry as compared to water. All subanalysis on specific dentifrice ingredients and the overall descriptive analysis supported these findings.
CONCLUSION
The results of this review demonstrate moderate-quality evidence for a weak inhibitory effect on plaque regrowth in favour of the use of a dentifrice intended for daily use.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Controlled Clinical Trials as Topic; Databases, Bibliographic; Dental Plaque; Dentifrices; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Oral Hygiene; Toothbrushing; Water; Young Adult
PubMed: 30169912
DOI: 10.1111/idh.12364