-
Oral hygiene status in individuals with hearing difficulties: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Special Care in Dentistry : Official... 2024Most studies focusing on oral hygiene status in hearing impaired individuals are cross-sectional and focus on specific populations. A comprehensive literature search and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
OBJECTIVES
Most studies focusing on oral hygiene status in hearing impaired individuals are cross-sectional and focus on specific populations. A comprehensive literature search and evidence-based analysis was carried out to assess the oral hygiene status in this special group of population.
METHODS
Searches were conducted in four databases with no restriction on publication date. Cross-sectional and comparative cross-sectional studies assessing the oral hygiene status and periodontal status of hearing impaired individuals using standardized evaluation criteria were included. Study selection, data extraction, and assessment of bias were carried out by four reviewers and oral hygiene, plaque, and gingival status were assessed. The risk of bias assessment was carried out by New Castle Ottawa Quality Assessment Scale. 29 relevant publications that fulfilled the eligibility criteria were included in the systematic review whereas six studies each assessing oral hygiene and plaque status and five studies evaluating the gingival status were included in the Meta-analysis.
RESULTS
Eight thousand eight hundred and ninety (8890) potentially relevant references were identified in the systematic literature search. The overall analysis of the included studies revealed a mean oral hygiene index score of 1.60 (95% CI 0.91-2.30), Gingival Index scores 1.27 (95% CI 1.02-1.51), and Plaque Index score 0.99 (95% CI 0.75-2.30) among the hearing impaired individuals.
CONCLUSION
The present study reported fair oral hygiene, fair plaque status, and moderate gingivitis among the hearing impaired individuals.
Topics: Humans; Oral Hygiene; Cross-Sectional Studies; Gingivitis; Dental Plaque; Hearing
PubMed: 36880182
DOI: 10.1111/scd.12845 -
Molecular Oral Microbiology Jun 2023COVID-19 is a transmissible respiratory and multisystem disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Viral transmission occurs mainly... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
COVID-19 is a transmissible respiratory and multisystem disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Viral transmission occurs mainly through the spread of salivary droplets or aerosol from an infected subject. Studies suggest that salivary viral load is correlated with disease severity and probability of transmission. Cetylpyridinium chloride mouthwash has been found to be effective in reducing salivary viral load. The aim of this systematic review of randomized controlled trials is to evaluate the efficacy of the mouthwash ingredient cetylpyridinium chloride on salivary viral load in SARS-CoV-2 infection.
METHODS
Randomized controlled trials comparing cetylpyridinium chloride mouthwash with placebo and other mouthwash ingredients in SARS-CoV-2 positive individuals were identified and evaluated.
RESULTS
Six studies with a total of 301 patients that met the inclusion criteria were included. The studies reported the efficacy of cetylpyridinium chloride mouthwashes in reduction on SARS-CoV-2 salivary viral load compared to placebo and other mouthwash ingredients.
CONCLUSION
Mouthwashes containing cetylpyridinium chloride are effective against salivary viral load of SARS-CoV-2 in vivo. There is also the possibility that the use of mouthwash containing cetylpyridinium chloride in SARS-CoV-2 positive subjects could reduce transmissibility and severity of COVID-19.
Topics: Humans; Cetylpyridinium; Mouthwashes; SARS-CoV-2; Chlorides; Dental Plaque; COVID-19; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 36808889
DOI: 10.1111/omi.12408 -
International Journal of Dental Hygiene May 2023To systematically evaluate randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on whether a chewable toothbrush (CTB) is more effective than a manual toothbrush (MTB) in terms of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To systematically evaluate randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on whether a chewable toothbrush (CTB) is more effective than a manual toothbrush (MTB) in terms of full-mouth dental plaque reduction in non-orthodontic children.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Six databases were searched by two independent reviewers according to pre-specified eligibility criteria up to October 2022. No restrictions regarding language, date of publication and minimum follow-up period were imposed. The Cochrane Collaboration's Risk of Bias tool (RoB 2.0) was used for quality appraisal and GRADE for assessing the certainty of evidence. Random-effects pairwise meta-analysis compared the dental plaque change scores of CTB and MTB through mean differences (MDs) and associated confidence intervals (95% CI), and sensitivity analysis determined whether an individual study significantly affected the results.
RESULTS
Seven eligible RCTs were retrieved, including data of 310 children aged 8-14 years. Five RCTs present some concerns and two have high RoB. No significant difference was detected between toothbrushes in terms of Turesky modification of the Quigley-Hein plaque index reduction (MD = -0.04, 95% CI: -0.26-0.18), with overall very low certainty on evidence. The pooled estimate remains unchanged when any RCT is omitted.
CONCLUSION
There is very low-certainty evidence of no significant difference on plaque removal between MTB and CTB in non-orthodontic children. Due to unexplained high heterogeneity and low methodological quality of RCTs, we cannot determine the extent to which our finding reflects a true effect or bias arising from limitations of primary studies.
Topics: Child; Humans; Dental Plaque; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Toothbrushing; Dental Plaque Index; Dental Care
PubMed: 36704825
DOI: 10.1111/idh.12671 -
Indian Journal of Dental Research :... 2022Dental caries is a global oral health problem caused due to localized demineralization of the enamel. Chemical plaque control is used as an adjuvant to mechanical plaque... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Dental caries is a global oral health problem caused due to localized demineralization of the enamel. Chemical plaque control is used as an adjuvant to mechanical plaque control in removing biofilm, thereby preventing dental caries. In recent times, there has been a renewed interest in nature-based products. This systematic review aimed to analyse the existing literature to compare the effectiveness of herbal and conventional dentifrices on prevention of dental caries. A search was done in the databases of PubMed and Google Scholar in July 2020 for the related topic. A hand search was done from the references of primary studies and other clinical trial registry sites. Randomized control trials, comparative clinical trials, and in vitro studies in which the effectiveness of herbal and conventional dentifrices on prevention of dental caries were included after review by the reviewers. The systematic search revealed a total of thirty-two publications from which ten publications were included. Five studies were clinical studies and five were in vitro studies. All the studies used microbiological analysis for the determination of cariogenic microorganisms in plaque and saliva, whereas one study used pH of plaque and saliva. Among the included studies, all studies had a high risk of bias with level 2 evidence. With the evidence available, it can be concluded that herbal dentifrices and fluoride dentifrices have similar antimicrobial activity against cariogenic microorganisms.
Topics: Humans; Toothpastes; Dental Caries; Dentifrices; Fluorides; Dental Enamel; Dental Plaque; Cariostatic Agents
PubMed: 36656198
DOI: 10.4103/ijdr.ijdr_404_21 -
Special Care in Dentistry : Official... 2023The aim of this systematic review is to compare the effectiveness of a powered (PTB) and a manual (MTB) toothbrush in the hands of people with physical (PD) or...
AIMS
The aim of this systematic review is to compare the effectiveness of a powered (PTB) and a manual (MTB) toothbrush in the hands of people with physical (PD) or intellectual (ID) disabilities or in the hands of a caregiver on parameters of plaque and gingival inflammation.
METHODS
MEDLINE-PubMed, Cochrane-CENTRAL and EMBASE databases were searched from initiation up to February 2022. The inclusion criteria were clinical trials conducted in people with PDs or IDs and comparing the effect of toothbrushing with a PTB to an MTB on plaque removal and gingival health. Data were extracted from the eligible studies and analyzed in four subgroups based firstly on the person performing the toothbrushing, either the participants or a caregiver, not a dental professional, and secondly on the main disability of the participants, either PD or ID. Heterogeneity and risk of bias were assessed, data were extracted from the eligible studies, and a descriptive analysis was performed.
RESULTS
The search yielded 294 unique papers; after selection 16 eligible publications describing 25 comparisons were included: 12 self-brushing and 13 caregiver-brushing comparisons. Considerable clinical and methodological heterogeneity was present; together with limited numerical data, not allowing for a meta-analysis. The descriptive analysis showed, in the majority, no statistically significant difference between PTB and MTB. This applied to self-brushing and caregiver-brushing in both disability groups.
CONCLUSION
This review demonstrates with a low level of evidence that a PTB compared to an MTB in the hands of people with PD or ID or in the hands of their caregivers results in no clinical difference in effectiveness on parameters of plaque and gingival inflammation.
Topics: Humans; Dental Plaque; Dental Plaque Index; Equipment Design; Gingivitis; Inflammation; Intellectual Disability; Single-Blind Method; Toothbrushing
PubMed: 36654213
DOI: 10.1111/scd.12821 -
Clinical and Experimental Dental... Feb 2023To summarize the available evidence on the efficacy of power-driven interdental cleaning tools (PDICTs) as an adjunct to tooth brushing compared to tooth brushing alone... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To summarize the available evidence on the efficacy of power-driven interdental cleaning tools (PDICTs) as an adjunct to tooth brushing compared to tooth brushing alone or tooth brushing combined with any other non-PDICT in terms of interproximal plaque and gingival bleeding reduction in gingivitis patients.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed in three databases until March 20, 2022 with the following main eligibility criteria: (1) randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) with (2) at least 28 days of follow-up in (3) gingivitis patients. Interproximal plaque and bleeding values were defined as the primary outcome variables and used for pair-wise meta-analyses.
RESULTS
Sixteen RCTs were identified including data from 1258 participants at the final evaluation. Eight studies each investigated the effect of either a liquid-based or mechanical PDICT; one of these studies tested additionally a combined liquid-based and mechanical PDICT. Tooth brushing combined with a liquid-based PDICT compared to tooth brushing alone did not result in better interproximal plaque values but in significantly lower interproximal bleeding values. Tooth brushing combined with either a liquid-based PDICT or with a mechanical PDICT compared to tooth brushing and flossing achieved comparable interproximal plaque and bleeding values. The majority of studies reporting on patient compliance/preference favored the use of a PDICT, and except for a single study, which was reporting soft tissue trauma in two subjects from improper use of a mechanical PDICT, none of the studies reported adverse events.
CONCLUSIONS
Daily use of PDICT as an adjunct to tooth brushing significantly reduces interproximal bleeding. This effect appears comparable to that of flossing, while PDICT may achieve higher patient acceptance/compliance.
Topics: Humans; Dental Devices, Home Care; Toothbrushing; Gingivitis; Dental Plaque; Gingiva
PubMed: 36562267
DOI: 10.1002/cre2.691 -
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 -
Clinical Oral Investigations Dec 2022A systematic review of published data was conducted with the aim of assessing the effects of sugar-free polyol chewing gums on gingival inflammation. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
A systematic review of published data was conducted with the aim of assessing the effects of sugar-free polyol chewing gums on gingival inflammation.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Electronic and hand searches were performed to find clinical studies concerning the effects of sugar-free chewing gums on gingival scores. Prospective randomized controlled clinical trials published between 1971 and 2021 were included in the review.
RESULTS
The initial search identified 46 erythritol, 102 xylitol, 23 sorbitol, and nine maltitol chewing gum articles. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria, seven xylitol chewing gum studies, one sorbitol, and one maltitol chewing gum study with either high or fair quality were reviewed. In five out of the seven xylitol studies, xylitol gum decreased gingival scores. In two studies, xylitol decreased gingival scores compared to a polyol gum, and in three studies compared to no gum/gum base. As for sorbitol and maltitol, only sorbitol gum chewing showed a small decrease in gingival scores compared to the controls.
CONCLUSIONS
Habitual xylitol gum chewing may reduce gingival inflammation. The low number of studies and their heterogeneity provide clear indications that the effects of sugar-free polyol chewing gums on gingival inflammation need further, well-controlled studies.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Sugar-free chewing gums, especially xylitol gum, may function as adjuncts to toothbrushing for reducing gingival inflammation, but the evidence so far is inconclusive.
Topics: Humans; Chewing Gum; Xylitol; Dental Plaque; Prospective Studies; Gingivitis; Sorbitol; Inflammation
PubMed: 36239787
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-022-04729-x -
Odontology Jan 2023This systematic review aims to analyse the available evidence concerning the use of citric acid (CA) in endodontics treatment and to assess its results in terms of... (Review)
Review
This systematic review aims to analyse the available evidence concerning the use of citric acid (CA) in endodontics treatment and to assess its results in terms of different considerations: effect on smear layer removal, influence on sealer bond strength, activation effect by means of sonic or ultrasonic devices, effects on dentine surface, antibacterial activity, and effectiveness boost for regenerative procedures, releasing growth factors from dentin. To evaluate the results of CA as a final irrigant and compare them to other chelating agents. This review followed the PRISMA checklist. An electronic search was conducted in MEDLINE (OVID), Scopus (Elsevier) and the Web of Science (Thomson Reuters) databases. Risk of bias of included studies was evaluated using the modified CONSORT checklist and the PRIRATE checklist 2020 guidelines. 39 studies fulfilled the eligibility criteria to be included in this review: 27 in vitro studies using extracted human teeth, 10 in vitro studies using human dentin disks, and 2 RCT. Citric acid has proven to be effective in smear layer removal, showing better results in coronal and middle root thirds, improving its effect when combined with manual dynamic activation. There is no agreement regarding citric acid effect on sealer adhesion and adaptation to root canal walls due to heterogeneity within studies. Citric acid irrigation can decrease dentine microhardness and cause decalcification and erosion, especially when used before NaOCl. Citric acid has proven to be beneficial in regenerative endodontic procedures due to higher TGF-β1 release.Trial registration: Prospero database CRD42021267055.
Topics: Humans; Citric Acid; Edetic Acid; Smear Layer; Dental Pulp Cavity; Root Canal Preparation; Root Canal Irrigants; Dentin; Microscopy, Electron, Scanning; Sodium Hypochlorite
PubMed: 36220913
DOI: 10.1007/s10266-022-00744-2 -
Nederlands Tijdschrift Voor... Sep 2022The advice for daily oral care is to brush teeth twice a day with toothpaste containing fluoride and to practice interdental cleaning. The use of mouthwash with...
The advice for daily oral care is to brush teeth twice a day with toothpaste containing fluoride and to practice interdental cleaning. The use of mouthwash with essential oils is not part of this advice, but is sometimes recommended when daily oral care is insufficient, or if mechanical cleaning is temporarily difficult or impossible. The results of a systematic literature review show that there is sufficient evidence, of moderate methodological quality, mouthwash with essential oils can reduce dental plaque and gingivitis. Oral care professionals can recommend mouthwash with essential oils as an adjunct to daily oral care.
Topics: Dental Plaque; Dental Plaque Index; Gingivitis; Humans; Mouthwashes; Oils, Volatile; Toothpastes
PubMed: 36074643
DOI: 10.5177/ntvt.2022.09.22055