-
Periodontology 2000 Jun 2021The extracellular matrix is a critical component of microbial biofilms, such as dental plaque, maintaining the spatial arrangement of cells and coordinating cellular... (Review)
Review
The extracellular matrix is a critical component of microbial biofilms, such as dental plaque, maintaining the spatial arrangement of cells and coordinating cellular functions throughout the structure. The extracellular polymeric substances that comprise the matrix include carbohydrates, nucleic acids, proteins, and lipids, which are frequently organized into macromolecular complexes and/or are associated with the surfaces of microbial cells within the biofilm. Cariogenic dental plaque is rich in glucan and fructan polysaccharides derived from extracellular microbial metabolism of dietary sucrose. By contrast, the matrix of subgingival dental plaque is a complex mixture of macromolecules that is still not well understood. Components of the matrix escape from microbial cells during lysis by active secretion or through the shedding of vesicles and serve to anchor microbial cells to the tooth surface. By maintaining the biofilm in close association with host tissues, the matrix facilitates interactions between microorganisms and the host. The outcome of these interactions may be the maintenance of health or the development of dental disease, such as caries or periodontitis. The matrix affords microbial cells protection against chemical and physical insults and hinders the eradication of pathogenic dental plaque. Therefore, strategies to control the matrix are critical to maintain oral health. This review discusses recent advances in our understanding of the composition, origins, and function of the dental plaque matrix, with a focus on subgingival dental plaque. New strategies to control subgingival dental plaque based on targeting the biofilm matrix are also considered.
Topics: Biofilms; Dental Caries; Dental Plaque; Extracellular Polymeric Substance Matrix; Humans; Periodontitis
PubMed: 33690911
DOI: 10.1111/prd.12361 -
Microbiology Spectrum Jan 2019As a major etiological agent of human dental caries, resides primarily in biofilms that form on the tooth surfaces, also known as dental plaque. In addition to caries,...
As a major etiological agent of human dental caries, resides primarily in biofilms that form on the tooth surfaces, also known as dental plaque. In addition to caries, is responsible for cases of infective endocarditis with a subset of strains being indirectly implicated with the onset of additional extraoral pathologies. During the past 4 decades, functional studies of have focused on understanding the molecular mechanisms the organism employs to form robust biofilms on tooth surfaces, to rapidly metabolize a wide variety of carbohydrates obtained from the host diet, and to survive numerous (and frequent) environmental challenges encountered in oral biofilms. In these areas of research, has served as a model organism for ground-breaking new discoveries that have, at times, challenged long-standing dogmas based on bacterial paradigms such as and . In addition to sections dedicated to carbohydrate metabolism, biofilm formation, and stress responses, this article discusses newer developments in biology research, namely, how interspecies and cross-kingdom interactions dictate the development and pathogenic potential of oral biofilms and how next-generation sequencing technologies have led to a much better understanding of the physiology and diversity of as a species.
Topics: Biofilms; Carbohydrate Metabolism; Dental Caries; Dental Plaque; Humans; Signal Transduction; Streptococcus mutans
PubMed: 30657107
DOI: 10.1128/microbiolspec.GPP3-0051-2018 -
Journal of Clinical Periodontology Jun 2018A classification for peri-implant diseases and conditions was presented. Focused questions on the characteristics of peri-implant health, peri-implant mucositis,...
Peri-implant diseases and conditions: Consensus report of workgroup 4 of the 2017 World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri-Implant Diseases and Conditions.
A classification for peri-implant diseases and conditions was presented. Focused questions on the characteristics of peri-implant health, peri-implant mucositis, peri-implantitis, and soft- and hard-tissue deficiencies were addressed. Peri-implant health is characterized by the absence of erythema, bleeding on probing, swelling, and suppuration. It is not possible to define a range of probing depths compatible with health; Peri-implant health can exist around implants with reduced bone support. The main clinical characteristic of peri-implant mucositis is bleeding on gentle probing. Erythema, swelling, and/or suppuration may also be present. An increase in probing depth is often observed in the presence of peri-implant mucositis due to swelling or decrease in probing resistance. There is strong evidence from animal and human experimental studies that plaque is the etiological factor for peri-implant mucositis. Peri-implantitis is a plaque-associated pathological condition occurring in tissues around dental implants, characterized by inflammation in the peri-implant mucosa and subsequent progressive loss of supporting bone. Peri-implantitis sites exhibit clinical signs of inflammation, bleeding on probing, and/or suppuration, increased probing depths and/or recession of the mucosal margin in addition to radiographic bone loss. The evidence is equivocal regarding the effect of keratinized mucosa on the long-term health of the peri-implant tissue. It appears, however, that keratinized mucosa may have advantages regarding patient comfort and ease of plaque removal. Case definitions in day-to-day clinical practice and in epidemiological or disease-surveillance studies for peri-implant health, peri-implant mucositis, and peri-implantitis were introduced. The proposed case definitions should be viewed within the context that there is no generic implant and that there are numerous implant designs with different surface characteristics, surgical and loading protocols. It is recommended that the clinician obtain baseline radiographic and probing measurements following the completion of the implant-supported prosthesis.
Topics: Animals; Consensus; Dental Implants; Dental Plaque; Humans; Peri-Implantitis; Stomatitis
PubMed: 29926491
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.12957 -
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 -
International Dental Journal Oct 2023The demand for clear aligners has risen over the past decade because they satisfy patients' desire for less noticeable and more comfortable orthodontic appliances.... (Review)
Review
The demand for clear aligners has risen over the past decade because they satisfy patients' desire for less noticeable and more comfortable orthodontic appliances. Because clear aligners are increasingly used in orthodontics, there is a big push to learn more about the physiologic and microbial changes that occur during treatment. The present work highlighted further links between clear aligners and changes in oral health and the oral microbiome and provided plaque control methods for clear aligner trays. Existing literature revealed that clear aligners have no significant influence on the structure of the oral microbiome during orthodontic therapy. Clear aligner treatment demonstrated promising results in terms of controlling plaque index, gingival health, and the prevalence of white spot lesions. Nevertheless, grooves, ridges, microcracks, and abrasions on the aligner surface would provide a prime environment for bacterial adherence and the development of plaque biofilms. A combination of mechanical and chemical methods seems to be a successful approach for removing plaque biofilm from aligners whilst also preventing pigment adsorption.
Topics: Humans; Oral Health; Orthodontic Appliances, Removable; Dental Care; Bacteria; Dental Plaque; Microbiota
PubMed: 37105789
DOI: 10.1016/j.identj.2023.03.012 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2018Periodontitis is a bacterially-induced, chronic inflammatory disease that destroys the connective tissues and bone that support teeth. Active periodontal treatment aims... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Periodontitis is a bacterially-induced, chronic inflammatory disease that destroys the connective tissues and bone that support teeth. Active periodontal treatment aims to reduce the inflammatory response, primarily through eradication of bacterial deposits. Following completion of treatment and arrest of inflammation, supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) is employed to reduce the probability of re-infection and progression of the disease; to maintain teeth without pain, excessive mobility or persistent infection in the long term, and to prevent related oral diseases.According to the American Academy of Periodontology, SPT should include all components of a typical dental recall examination, and importantly should also include periodontal re-evaluation and risk assessment, supragingival and subgingival removal of bacterial plaque and calculus, and re-treatment of any sites showing recurrent or persistent disease. While the first four points might be expected to form part of the routine examination appointment for periodontally healthy patients, the inclusion of thorough periodontal evaluation, risk assessment and subsequent treatment - normally including mechanical debridement of any plaque or calculus deposits - differentiates SPT from routine care.Success of SPT has been reported in a number of long-term, retrospective studies. This review aimed to assess the evidence available from randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effects of supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) in the maintenance of the dentition of adults treated for periodontitis.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 8 May 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2017, Issue 5), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 8 May 2017), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 8 May 2017). 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 (RCTs) evaluating SPT versus monitoring only or alternative approaches to mechanical debridement; SPT alone versus SPT with adjunctive interventions; different approaches to or providers of SPT; and different time intervals for SPT delivery.We excluded split-mouth studies where we considered there could be a risk of contamination.Participants must have completed active periodontal therapy at least six months prior to randomisation and be enrolled in an SPT programme. Trials must have had a minimum follow-up period of 12 months.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened search results to identify studies for inclusion, assessed the risk of bias in included studies and extracted study data. When possible, we calculated mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous variables. Two review authors assessed the quality of evidence for each comparison and outcome using GRADE criteria.
MAIN RESULTS
We included four trials involving 307 participants aged 31 to 85 years, who had been previously treated for moderate to severe chronic periodontitis. Three studies compared adjuncts to mechanical debridement in SPT versus debridement only. The adjuncts were local antibiotics in two studies (one at high risk of bias and one at low risk) and photodynamic therapy in one study (at unclear risk of bias). One study at high risk of bias compared provision of SPT by a specialist versus general practitioner. We did not identify any RCTs evaluating the effects of SPT versus monitoring only, or of providing SPT at different time intervals, or that compared the effects of mechanical debridement using different approaches or technologies.No included trials measured our primary outcome 'tooth loss'; however, studies evaluated signs of inflammation and potential periodontal disease progression, including bleeding on probing (BoP), clinical attachment level (CAL) and probing pocket depth (PPD).There was no evidence of a difference between SPT delivered by a specialist versus a general practitioner for BoP or PPD at 12 months (very low-quality evidence). This study did not measure CAL or adverse events.Due to heterogeneous outcome reporting, it was not possible to combine data from the two studies comparing mechanical debridement with or without the use of adjunctive local antibiotics. Both studies found no evidence of a difference between groups at 12 months (low to very low-quality evidence). There were no adverse events in either study.The use of adjunctive photodynamic therapy did not demonstrate evidence of benefit compared to mechanical debridement only (very low-quality evidence). Adverse events were not measured.The quality of the evidence is low to very low for these comparisons. Future research is likely to change the findings, therefore the results should be interpreted with caution.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Overall, there is insufficient evidence to determine the superiority of different protocols or adjunctive strategies to improve tooth maintenance during SPT. No trials evaluated SPT versus monitoring only. The evidence available for the comparisons evaluated is of low to very low quality, and hampered by dissimilarities in outcome reporting. More trials using uniform definitions and outcomes are required to address the objectives of this review.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Chronic Periodontitis; Dental Plaque; Humans; Middle Aged; Periodontal Debridement; Periodontics; Photochemotherapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tooth Loss
PubMed: 29291254
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009376.pub2 -
Medicina Oral, Patologia Oral Y Cirugia... Aug 2006Saliva is a complex secretion. 93% by volume is secreted by the major salivary glands and the remaining 7% by the minor glands. 99% of saliva is water and the other 1%... (Review)
Review
Saliva is a complex secretion. 93% by volume is secreted by the major salivary glands and the remaining 7% by the minor glands. 99% of saliva is water and the other 1% is composed of organic and inorganic molecules. While the quantity of saliva is important, so is its quality. The components of saliva, its functions in maintaining oral health and the main factors that cause alterations in salivary secretion will be reviewed, the importance of saliva in caries development and bacterial plaque formation will be discussed and its role as an aid to diagnosing certain pathologies will be examined. Variations in salivary flow can be affected, reversibly or irreversibly, by numerous physiological and pathological factors. Saliva plays an essential role in maintaining the integrity of the oral structures, in personal relationships, in the digestion and in controlling oral infection. The part that saliva plays in protecting teeth from caries can be summarised under four aspects: diluting and eliminating sugars and other substances, buffer capacity, balancing demineralisation/remineralisation and antimicrobial action. Saliva is a promising option for diagnosing certain disorders and monitoring the evolution of certain pathologies or the dosage of medicines or drugs. Its advantages as a diagnostic tool include its being easy to obtain and the positive correlation between many parameters in serum and saliva.
Topics: Biomarkers; Dental Caries; Dental Plaque; Humans; Oral Health; Risk Factors; Saliva; Salivary Glands; Salivary Proteins and Peptides; Salivation; Sialorrhea; Xerostomia
PubMed: 16878065
DOI: No ID Found -
Oral Health & Preventive Dentistry Oct 2020Currently, there is no consensus on recommendations for manual toothbrushing techniques between dentists, oral health therapists and dental companies. The aim of this...
PURPOSE
Currently, there is no consensus on recommendations for manual toothbrushing techniques between dentists, oral health therapists and dental companies. The aim of this systematic review is to identify and assess the quality of evidence of the effectiveness of manual toothbrushing techniques in the existing literature.
METHODS
A broad search was conducted on the electronic databases Medline via Ovid, PubMed and EBSCO Dentistry & Oral Sciences. Included studies examined manual toothbrushing technique efficiency. Articles were assessed utilising the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias. Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria and were included in this review. These included five randomised controlled trials (RCT), seven experimental non-randomised control studies and one in vitro study.
RESULTS
Of the 3190 articles identified, 40 were relevant to manual toothbrushing and 13 were included in the final review. Studies indicating statistically significantly superior plaque removal for a given technique were Bass (one), modified Bass (one), Charter's (two), Fones (two), scrub (two), roll (one), modified Stillman (one), toothpick method (one). Four studies exhibited no statistically significant difference in effectiveness of plaque removal. Unfortunately, considerable variation was found between studies, making a definitive conclusion impossible in terms of an ideal manual toothbrushing technique that would promote plaque removal and reduce gingivitis.
CONCLUSION
There is still insufficient evidence for suggesting that one toothbrushing method is more effective than another in plaque removal and reduction of gingivitis. Excessive variability in many aspects of the design and methodology of the selected studies hinder conclusions on an ideal manual toothbrushing technique. Experimental randomised controlled trials that follow the CONSORT guidelines are required to provide adequate-quality evidence and make any definitive conclusions on the relative effectiveness of manual toothbrushing techniques.
Topics: Dental Care; Dental Plaque; Gingivitis; Humans; Oral Health; Toothbrushing
PubMed: 33028052
DOI: 10.3290/j.ohpd.a45354 -
Oral Health & Preventive Dentistry Jun 2022To summarise the available data on the effects of chlorhexidine (CHX) mouthwash in treating gingivitis during treatment with fixed orthodontic appliances. (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
PURPOSE
To summarise the available data on the effects of chlorhexidine (CHX) mouthwash in treating gingivitis during treatment with fixed orthodontic appliances.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Multiple electronic databases were searched up to December 7th, 2021. Only randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were eligible for inclusion. The quality of the included RCTs was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomised trials (RoB 2.0). After data extraction and risk of bias assessment, differences were recorded in several oral hygiene indices in time and mean percentage change in those indices using different antimicrobial solutions.
RESULTS
Fourteen studies were deemed eligible for inclusion, reporting on a total of 602 patients with an age range of 11-35 years. The experimental solution was a 0.06%, 0.12%, or 0.2% CHX mouthwash with the control either a placebo mouthwash or a selection from a variety of mouthwashes. Treatment duration varied from 1 day to almost 5 months and the follow-up period varied from 1 min to 5 months. Chlorhexidine mouthrinses led to reduced plaque accumulation and gingival inflammation during orthodontic treatment, while at the same time, some of the control group mouthrinses were deemed equally effective. No statistically significant difference was detected in the meta-analysis between CHX and mouthwashes with propolis/probiotics/herbs in terms of the gingival index at 3 to 4 weeks (mean difference 0.07, 95% CI: -0.18, 0.31, p = 0.59).
CONCLUSION
Chlorhexidine mouthwash in orthodontic patients successfully controls gingival inflammation and bleeding when compared to untreated controls, but is equally effective as other mouthrinses where various oral health indices are concerned.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Child; Chlorhexidine; Dental Plaque; Gingivitis; Humans; Inflammation; Mouthwashes; Young Adult
PubMed: 35762364
DOI: 10.3290/j.ohpd.b3170043 -
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