-
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jun 2014Removing dental plaque may play a key role maintaining oral health. There is conflicting evidence for the relative merits of manual and powered toothbrushing in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Removing dental plaque may play a key role maintaining oral health. There is conflicting evidence for the relative merits of manual and powered toothbrushing in achieving this. This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in 2003, and previously updated in 2005.
OBJECTIVES
To compare manual and powered toothbrushes in everyday use, by people of any age, in relation to the removal of plaque, the health of the gingivae, staining and calculus, dependability, adverse effects and cost.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 23 January 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 1), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 23 January 2014), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 23 January 2014) and CINAHL via EBSCO (1980 to 23 January 2014). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register and the WHO Clinical Trials Registry Platform 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 at least four weeks of unsupervised powered toothbrushing versus manual toothbrushing for oral health in children and adults.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Random-effects models were used provided there were four or more studies included in the meta-analysis, otherwise fixed-effect models were used. Data were classed as short term (one to three months) and long term (greater than three months).
MAIN RESULTS
Fifty-six trials met the inclusion criteria; 51 trials involving 4624 participants provided data for meta-analysis. Five trials were at low risk of bias, five at high and 46 at unclear risk of bias.There is moderate quality evidence that powered toothbrushes provide a statistically significant benefit compared with manual toothbrushes with regard to the reduction of plaque in both the short term (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.50 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.70 to -0.31); 40 trials, n = 2871) and long term (SMD -0.47 (95% CI -0.82 to -0.11; 14 trials, n = 978). These results correspond to an 11% reduction in plaque for the Quigley Hein index (Turesky) in the short term and 21% reduction long term. Both meta-analyses showed high levels of heterogeneity (I(2) = 83% and 86% respectively) that was not explained by the different powered toothbrush type subgroups.With regard to gingivitis, there is moderate quality evidence that powered toothbrushes again provide a statistically significant benefit when compared with manual toothbrushes both in the short term (SMD -0.43 (95% CI -0.60 to -0.25); 44 trials, n = 3345) and long term (SMD -0.21 (95% CI -0.31 to -0.12); 16 trials, n = 1645). This corresponds to a 6% and 11% reduction in gingivitis for the Löe and Silness index respectively. Both meta-analyses showed high levels of heterogeneity (I(2) = 82% and 51% respectively) that was not explained by the different powered toothbrush type subgroups.The number of trials for each type of powered toothbrush varied: side to side (10 trials), counter oscillation (five trials), rotation oscillation (27 trials), circular (two trials), ultrasonic (seven trials), ionic (four trials) and unknown (five trials). The greatest body of evidence was for rotation oscillation brushes which demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in plaque and gingivitis at both time points.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Powered toothbrushes reduce plaque and gingivitis more than manual toothbrushing in the short and long term. The clinical importance of these findings remains unclear. Observation of methodological guidelines and greater standardisation of design would benefit both future trials and meta-analyses.Cost, reliability and side effects were inconsistently reported. Any reported side effects were localised and only temporary.
Topics: Dental Devices, Home Care; Dental Plaque; Gingival Diseases; Gingivitis; Humans; Oral Health; Periodontal Diseases; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Toothbrushing
PubMed: 24934383
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD002281.pub3 -
Ciencia & Saude Coletiva 2019This study investigated the mediation of self-esteem in adolescents' oral health behaviors. The Rosenberg self-esteem scale was used to assess self-esteem, whereas data...
This study investigated the mediation of self-esteem in adolescents' oral health behaviors. The Rosenberg self-esteem scale was used to assess self-esteem, whereas data from socio-demographic and behavior characteristics were analyzed by questions validated in previous surveys. The teenagers had good oral health behavior, except unhealthy diet. The number of adolescents with high self-esteem was a lot smaller than those with low self-esteem. The use of dental services, even when associated with high self-esteem, lost significance after being adjusted by sex, age and tooth brushing frequency. Nevertheless, multiple logistic regression analysis, using unadjusted estimates and adjusted with their respective Confidence Intervals of 95%, showed a relationship of self-esteem with age (p-value=0.001) and tooth brushing frequency (p-value=0.019). Regardless of the sex, students over 16 years old with high self-esteem brush their teeth more often, having probably better oral health. These results confirm the modulation of self-esteem in oral health, and then it is necessary the analysis and the use of these psychosocial factors in the young oral health care.
Topics: Adolescent; Age Factors; Cross-Sectional Studies; Dental Care; Diet; Female; Health Behavior; Humans; Male; Oral Health; Self Concept; Students; Surveys and Questionnaires; Toothbrushing; Young Adult
PubMed: 31664381
DOI: 10.1590/1413-812320182411.02492018 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Oct 2016Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is defined as pneumonia developing in people who have received mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hours. VAP is a potentially... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) is defined as pneumonia developing in people who have received mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hours. VAP is a potentially serious complication in these patients who are already critically ill. Oral hygiene care (OHC), using either a mouthrinse, gel, toothbrush, or combination, together with aspiration of secretions, may reduce the risk of VAP in these patients.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects of oral hygiene care on incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation in hospital intensive care units (ICUs).
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 17 December 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2015, Issue 11), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 17 December 2015), Embase Ovid (1980 to 17 December 2015), LILACS BIREME Virtual Health Library (1982 to 17 December 2015), CINAHL EBSCO (1937 to 17 December 2016), Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (1978 to 14 January 2013), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (1994 to 14 January 2013), Wan Fang Database (January 1984 to 14 January 2013) and VIP Database (January 2012 to 4 May 2016). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials to 17 December 2015. We placed no restrictions on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effects of OHC (mouthrinse, swab, toothbrush or combination) in critically ill patients receiving mechanical ventilation for at least 48 hours.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently assessed search results, extracted data and assessed risk of bias in included studies. We contacted study authors for additional information. We pooled data from trials with similar interventions and outcomes. We reported risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, using random-effects models unless there were fewer than four studies.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 38 RCTs (6016 participants). There were four main comparisons: chlorhexidine (CHX) mouthrinse or gel versus placebo/usual care; toothbrushing versus no toothbrushing; powered versus manual toothbrushing; and comparisons of oral care solutions. We assessed the overall risk of bias as low in five trials (13%), high in 26 trials (68%), and unclear in seven trials (18%). We did not consider the risk of bias to be serious when assessing the quality of evidence (GRADE) for VAP incidence, but we downgraded other outcomes for risk of bias.High quality evidence from 18 RCTs (2451 participants, 86% adults) shows that CHX mouthrinse or gel, as part of OHC, reduces the risk of VAP compared to placebo or usual care from 25% to about 19% (RR 0.74, 95% confidence intervals (CI) 0.61 to 0.89, P = 0.002, I = 31%). This is equivalent to a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) of 17 (95% CI 10 to 33), which indicates that for every 17 ventilated patients in intensive care receiving OHC including chlorhexidine, one outcome of VAP would be prevented. There is no evidence of a difference between CHX and placebo/usual care for the outcomes of mortality (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.23, P = 0.18, I = 0%, 15 RCTs, 2163 participants, moderate quality evidence), duration of mechanical ventilation (MD -0.09 days, 95% CI -1.73 to 1.55 days, P = 0.91, I = 36%, five RCTs, 800 participants, low quality evidence), or duration of intensive care unit (ICU) stay (MD 0.21 days, 95% CI -1.48 to 1.89 days, P = 0.81, I = 9%, six RCTs, 833 participants, moderate quality evidence). There is insufficient evidence to determine the effect of CHX on duration of systemic antibiotics, oral health indices, caregivers' preferences or cost. Only two studies reported any adverse effects, and these were mild with similar frequency in CHX and control groups.We are uncertain as to the effects of toothbrushing (± antiseptics) on the outcomes of VAP (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.44 to 1.09, P = 0.11, I = 64%, five RCTs, 889 participants, very low quality evidence) and mortality (RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.70 to 1.09, P = 0.24, I = 0%, five RCTs, 889 participants, low quality evidence) compared to OHC without toothbrushing (± antiseptics). There is insufficient evidence to determine whether toothbrushing affects duration of mechanical ventilation, duration of ICU stay, use of systemic antibiotics, oral health indices, adverse effects, caregivers' preferences or cost.Only one trial (78 participants) compared use of a powered toothbrush with a manual toothbrush, providing insufficient evidence to determine the effect on any of the outcomes of this review.Fifteen trials compared various other oral care solutions. There is very weak evidence that povidone iodine mouthrinse is more effective than saline/placebo (RR 0.69, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.95, P = 0.02, I = 74%, three studies, 356 participants, high risk of bias), and that saline rinse is more effective than saline swab (RR 0.47, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.62, P < 0.001, I = 84%, four studies, 488 participants, high risk of bias) in reducing VAP. Due to variation in comparisons and outcomes among trials, there is insufficient evidence concerning the effects of other oral care solutions.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
OHC including chlorhexidine mouthwash or gel reduces the risk of developing ventilator-associated pneumonia in critically ill patients from 25% to about 19%. However, there is no evidence of a difference in the outcomes of mortality, duration of mechanical ventilation or duration of ICU stay. There is no evidence that OHC including both antiseptics and toothbrushing is different from OHC with antiseptics alone, and some weak evidence to suggest that povidone iodine mouthrinse is more effective than saline/placebo, and saline rinse is more effective than saline swab in reducing VAP. There is insufficient evidence to determine whether powered toothbrushing or other oral care solutions are effective in reducing VAP. There is also insufficient evidence to determine whether any of the interventions evaluated in the studies are associated with adverse effects.
Topics: Adult; Child; Chlorhexidine; Critical Illness; Humans; Intensive Care Units; Mouthwashes; Oral Hygiene; Pneumonia, Ventilator-Associated; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Respiration, Artificial; Toothbrushing
PubMed: 27778318
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008367.pub3 -
International Journal of Dental Hygiene Feb 2019To investigate to what extent the degree of toothbrush wear of 3-month-old manual toothbrushes influence plaque scores.
OBJECTIVE
To investigate to what extent the degree of toothbrush wear of 3-month-old manual toothbrushes influence plaque scores.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
During a recently published study with a follow-up of 1 year, all participants performed a similar basic home-based oral hygiene regimen. Hence, they were instructed to brush for 2 minutes twice daily according to the Bass method technique and using a standard dentifrice containing sodium fluoride. Toothbrushes were turned in every 3-month, and the degree of wear was scored. The mean plaque score data were additionally analysed and correlated with wear scores of the toothbrushes.
RESULTS
For analysis, for each of 172 individual participants, a set of three identical, 3-month-old used toothbrushes were available. Toothbrush wear varied widely between participants. However, per patient, the 3-month wear status of the three evaluated toothbrushes was strongly correlated (rho = 0.8, P < 0.0001). Participants who returned toothbrushes with extreme wear had significantly higher plaque scores than those who returned toothbrushes with no visible or light wear (P = 0.01).
CONCLUSION
Toothbrush wear per individual patient is fairly consistent. Toothbrushes with extreme wear were less effective than those with no or light wear. Therefore, bristle splaying appears to be a more appropriate measure of brush replacement time then the commonly used toothbrush age. Splaying of the outer tufts beyond the base of the toothbrush is a condition that indicates it is time to change the brush.
Topics: Adult; Dental Plaque Index; Equipment Failure; Female; Humans; Male; Toothbrushing; Young Adult
PubMed: 30326176
DOI: 10.1111/idh.12370 -
Dental Materials Journal Oct 2022The relative dentin abrasivity-profilometry equivalent values were compared using non-contact profilometry with three subtypes of regular toothpaste and two subtypes of...
The relative dentin abrasivity-profilometry equivalent values were compared using non-contact profilometry with three subtypes of regular toothpaste and two subtypes of whitening toothpaste containing sodium bicarbonate and 35% hydrogen peroxide. Bovine dentin specimens were assigned to six groups: regular toothpaste (R): R1 (BAMBOO SALT GUM OINTMENT); R2 (MEDIAN TARTAR ORIGINAL); R3 (PERIOE Alpha), Reference slurry: RS (calcium pyrophosphate), whitening toothpaste (W): W1 (NET. WT); W2 (Vussen 28 WHITENING). Relative dentin abrasion-profilometry equivalent (RDA-PE) was determined by brushing 10,000 times (n=8). The pH of the toothpaste was measured (n=5) and the abrasive constituents of the toothpaste was analyzed by FE-SEM and EDS. The RDA-PE values ranged from 26 to 166, and the pH level ranges were 4.928-9.153. The RDA-PE value of the whitening toothpaste containing hydrogen peroxide was not high compared with that of the regular toothpaste. The RDA-PE values of whitening toothpaste could vary depending on the mechanism and ingredients of the whitening agents.
Topics: Animals; Bleaching Agents; Calcium Pyrophosphate; Cattle; Dentin; Hydrogen; Materials Testing; Ointments; Sodium Bicarbonate; Tooth Abrasion; Toothbrushing; Toothpastes
PubMed: 35793939
DOI: 10.4012/dmj.2021-303 -
Journal of Periodontology May 2018A wide selection of Interdental Oral Hygiene (IOH) aids is available to consumers. Recommendations for selection are, however, limited by the lack of direct comparisons... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
A wide selection of Interdental Oral Hygiene (IOH) aids is available to consumers. Recommendations for selection are, however, limited by the lack of direct comparisons in available studies. We aimed to assess the comparative efficacy of IOH aids using Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis (BNMA).
METHODS
Two independent reviewers performed a systematic literature review of randomized clinical trials assessing IOH aids, based on a focused question. Gingival inflammation (Gingival Index (GI), Bleeding-on-probing (BOP)) was the primary outcome and plaque and probing depth were secondary outcomes A random-effects arm-based BNMA model was run for each outcome; posterior medians and 95% credible-intervals (CIs) summarized marginal distributions of parameters.
RESULTS
A two-phase selection process identified 22 trials assessing 10 IOH aids as brushing adjuncts. Interdental brushes (IB) yielded the largest reduction in GI (0.23 [95% CI: 0.09, 0.37]) as toothbrushing adjuncts, followed by water-jet (WJ) (0.19 [95% CI: 0.14, 0.24]). Rankings based on posterior probabilities revealed that IB and WJ had the highest probability of being "best" (64.7% and 27.4%, respectively) for GI reduction, whereas the probability for toothpick and floss being the "best" IOH aids was near zero. Notably, except for toothpicks, all IOH aids were better at reducing GI as compared with control.
CONCLUSIONS
BNMA enabled us to quantitatively evaluate IOH aids and provide a global ranking of their efficacy. Interdental brushes and water-jets ranked high for reducing gingival bleeding, whereas toothpicks and floss ranked last. The patient-perceived benefit of IOH aids is not clear because gingival inflammation measures are physical indicators of periodontal health.
Topics: Bayes Theorem; Dental Devices, Home Care; Dental Plaque Index; Gingivitis; Humans; Inflammation; Oral Hygiene; Toothbrushing
PubMed: 29520910
DOI: 10.1002/JPER.17-0368 -
Clinical Oral Investigations Apr 2013This study aimed to determine the brushing forces applied during in vivo toothbrushing with manual and sonic toothbrushes and to analyse the effect of these brushing...
OBJECTIVES
This study aimed to determine the brushing forces applied during in vivo toothbrushing with manual and sonic toothbrushes and to analyse the effect of these brushing forces on abrasion of sound and eroded enamel and dentin in vitro.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Brushing forces of a manual and two sonic toothbrushes (low and high frequency mode) were measured in 27 adults before and after instruction of the respective brushing technique and statistically analysed by repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA). In the in vitro experiment, sound and eroded enamel and dentin specimens (each subgroup n = 12) were brushed in an automatic brushing machine with the respective brushing forces using a fluoridated toothpaste slurry. Abrasion was determined by profilometry and statistically analysed by one-way ANOVA.
RESULTS
Average brushing force of the manual toothbrush (1.6 ± 0.3 N) was significantly higher than for the sonic toothbrushes (0.9 ± 0.2 N), which were not significantly different from each other. Brushing force prior and after instruction of the brushing technique was not significantly different. The manual toothbrush caused highest abrasion of sound and eroded dentin, but lowest on sound enamel. No significant differences were detected on eroded enamel.
CONCLUSION
Brushing forces of manual and sonic toothbrushes are different and affect their abrasive capacity.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Patients with severe tooth wear and exposed and/or eroded dentin surfaces should use sonic toothbrushes to reduce abrasion, while patients without tooth wear or with erosive lesions confining only to enamel do not benefit from sonic toothbrushes with regard to abrasion.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Analysis of Variance; Dental Enamel; Dental Stress Analysis; Dentin; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Statistics, Nonparametric; Tooth Abrasion; Tooth Erosion; Toothbrushing; Ultrasonics; Young Adult
PubMed: 22791283
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-012-0788-z -
International Journal of Dental Hygiene May 2019To evaluate the efficacy of an oscillating-rotating (O-R) electric rechargeable toothbrush with a novel round brush head comprised of regular and tapered bristles in... (Randomized Controlled Trial)
Randomized Controlled Trial
A 5-week randomized clinical evaluation of a novel electric toothbrush head with regular and tapered bristles versus a manual toothbrush for reduction of gingivitis and plaque.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the efficacy of an oscillating-rotating (O-R) electric rechargeable toothbrush with a novel round brush head comprised of regular and tapered bristles in reducing plaque and gingivitis versus a manual toothbrush.
METHODS
This was a randomized, examiner-blind, parallel group, five-week study. Participants with mild-to-moderate plaque and gingivitis received an oral examination and were evaluated for baseline plaque (Rustogi Modified Navy Index), gingivitis (Modified Gingival Index) and gingival bleeding (Gingival Bleeding Index). Qualifying participants were randomly assigned to the novel Oral-B sensitive brush head (EB60) on an Oral-B Vitality O-R handle (D12) or an ADA manual toothbrush. Participants brushed twice daily with the assigned brush and a standard fluoride dentifrice for 5 weeks before returning for an oral examination and plaque and gingivitis evaluations.
RESULTS
A total of 150 participants were randomized to treatment and completed the study (mean age = 45.7 years). Both brushes demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in number of bleeding sites versus baseline (P < 0.001). At Week 5, the number of bleeding sites was reduced from baseline by 11.15 (52.2%) for the O-R brush and 5.04 (23.6%) for the manual brush. The treatment difference was statistically significant (P < 0.001). Significant reductions versus baseline (P < 0.001) were also seen for both brushes for MGI, GBI and Rustogi plaque measures (whole mouth, gingival margin and proximal), but the O-R brush produced significantly greater reductions versus the manual brush (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSION
The O-R handle and round brush head with tapered and regular bristles produced greater plaque and gingivitis reductions than the manual brush.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Dental Plaque; Dentifrices; Electrical Equipment and Supplies; Female; Gingivitis; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Time Factors; Toothbrushing; Young Adult
PubMed: 30375187
DOI: 10.1111/idh.12372 -
Australian Dental Journal Dec 2019To identify and map existing evidence on the effectiveness of interdental cleaning devices in preventing dental caries and periodontal diseases, a scoping review was... (Review)
Review
To identify and map existing evidence on the effectiveness of interdental cleaning devices in preventing dental caries and periodontal diseases, a scoping review was carried out by electronically searching PubMed, Scopus and Embase. Studies on interdental cleaning devices, written in English, and published from January 2008 up to April 2019 were included in the review. Of 1860 studies identified, six systematic reviews (SR) were included in the review. One SR each was on flossing, interdental brushes, wood sticks and oral irrigation. Of two SR on multitude of interdental cleaning devices, one assessed comparative efficacy while the other both the individual and comparative efficacy. All reviews had assessed the heterogeneity and the methodological quality of studies included, and performed data extraction and meta-analysis where appropriate. Evidence ranged from weak to moderate with very low- to low-certainty for the adjunctive benefit of these devices to control plaque and gingivitis. It warrants long-term studies with sufficient power and those assessing the impact of interdental cleaning on interproximal caries to corroborate such evidence. Available evidence on the efficacy of interdental cleaning devices suggests that dental practitioners recommend patient-specific interdental cleaning devices that enable patients to achieve a safe and high standard of interdental cleaning.
Topics: Dental Caries; Dental Devices, Home Care; Dental Plaque; Gingivitis; Humans; Periodontal Diseases; Systematic Reviews as Topic; Toothbrushing
PubMed: 31556125
DOI: 10.1111/adj.12722 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... May 2019Periodontal (gum) disease and dental caries (tooth decay) are the most common causes of tooth loss; dental plaque plays a major role in the development of these...
BACKGROUND
Periodontal (gum) disease and dental caries (tooth decay) are the most common causes of tooth loss; dental plaque plays a major role in the development of these diseases. Effective oral hygiene involves removing dental plaque, for example, by regular toothbrushing. People with intellectual disabilities (ID) can have poor oral hygiene and oral health outcomes.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effects (benefits and harms) of oral hygiene interventions, specifically the mechanical removal of plaque, for people with intellectual disabilities (ID).
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases to 4 February 2019: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Cochrane Register of Studies), MEDLINE Ovid, Embase Ovid and PsycINFO Ovid. ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. The Embase search was restricted by date due to the Cochrane Centralised Search Project, which makes available clinical trials indexed in Embase through CENTRAL. We handsearched specialist conference abstracts from the International Association of Disability and Oral Health (2006 to 2016).
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and some types of non-randomised studies (NRS) (non-RCTs, controlled before-after studies, interrupted time series studies and repeated measures studies) that evaluated oral hygiene interventions targeted at people with ID or their carers, or both. We used the definition of ID in the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems, 10th revision (ICD-10). We defined oral hygiene as the mechanical removal of plaque. We excluded studies that evaluated chemical removal of plaque, or mechanical and chemical removal of plaque combined.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently screened search records, identified relevant studies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and judged the certainty of the evidence according to GRADE criteria. We contacted study authors for additional information if required. We reported RCTs and NRSs separately.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 19 RCTs and 15 NRSs involving 1795 adults and children with ID and 354 carers. Interventions evaluated were: special manual toothbrushes, electric toothbrushes, oral hygiene training, scheduled dental visits plus supervised toothbrushing, discussion of clinical photographs showing plaque, varied frequency of toothbrushing, plaque-disclosing agents and individualised care plans. We categorised results as short (six weeks or less), medium (between six weeks and 12 months) and long term (more than 12 months).Most studies were small; all were at overall high or unclear risk of bias. None of the studies reported quality of life or dental caries. We present below the evidence available from RCTs (or NRS if the comparison had no RCTs) for gingival health (inflammation and plaque) and adverse effects, as well as knowledge and behaviour outcomes for the training studies.Very low-certainty evidence suggested a special manual toothbrush (the Superbrush) reduced gingival inflammation (GI), and possibly plaque, more than a conventional toothbrush in the medium term (GI: mean difference (MD) -12.40, 95% CI -24.31 to -0.49; plaque: MD -0.44, 95% CI -0.93 to 0.05; 1 RCT, 18 participants); brushing was carried out by the carers. In the short term, neither toothbrush showed superiority (GI: MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.77 to 0.57; plaque: MD 0.20, 95% CI -0.45 to 0.85; 1 RCT, 25 participants; low- to very low-certainty evidence).Moderate- and low-certainty evidence found no difference between electric and manual toothbrushes for reducing GI or plaque, respectively, in the medium term (GI: MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.06 to 0.09; plaque: standardised mean difference 0.29, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.65; 2 RCTs, 120 participants). Short-term findings were inconsistent (4 RCTs; low- to very low-certainty evidence).Low-certainty evidence suggested training carers in oral hygiene care had no detectable effect on levels of GI or plaque in the medium term (GI: MD -0.09, 95% CI -0.63 to 0.45; plaque: MD -0.07, 95% CI -0.26 to 0.13; 2 RCTs, 99 participants). Low-certainty evidence suggested oral hygiene knowledge of carers was better in the medium term after training (MD 0.69, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.06; 2 RCTs, 189 participants); this was not found in the short term, and results for changes in behaviour, attitude and self-efficacy were mixed.One RCT (10 participants) found that training people with ID in oral hygiene care reduced plaque but not GI in the short term (GI: MD -0.28, 95% CI -0.90 to 0.34; plaque: MD -0.47, 95% CI -0.92 to -0.02; very low-certainty evidence).One RCT (304 participants) found that scheduled dental recall visits (at 1-, 3- or 6-month intervals) plus supervised daily toothbrushing were more likely than usual care to reduce GI (pocketing but not bleeding) and plaque in the long term (low-certainty evidence).One RCT (29 participants) found that motivating people with ID about oral hygiene by discussing photographs of their teeth with plaque highlighted by a plaque-disclosing agent, did not reduce plaque in the medium term (very low-certainty evidence).One RCT (80 participants) found daily toothbrushing by dental students was more effective for reducing plaque in people with ID than once- or twice-weekly toothbrushing in the short term (low-certainty evidence).A benefit to gingival health was found by one NRS that evaluated toothpaste with a plaque-disclosing agent and one that evaluated individualised oral care plans (very low-certainty evidence).Most studies did not report adverse effects; of those that did, only one study considered them as a formal outcome. Some studies reported participant difficulties using the electric or special manual toothbrushes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Although some oral hygiene interventions for people with ID show benefits, the clinical importance of these benefits is unclear. The evidence is mainly low or very low certainty. Moderate-certainty evidence was available for only one finding: electric and manual toothbrushes were similarly effective for reducing gingival inflammation in people with ID in the medium term. Larger, higher-quality RCTs are recommended to endorse or refute the findings of this review. In the meantime, oral hygiene care and advice should be based on professional expertise and the needs and preferences of the individual with ID and their carers.
Topics: Dental Plaque; Humans; Intellectual Disability; Oral Health; Oral Hygiene; Periodontal Diseases; Toothbrushing
PubMed: 31149734
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012628.pub2