Debora Matthews1. 1. Department of Dental Clinical Sciences, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Abstract
DATA SOURCES: Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the reference lists of potentially relevant studies and reviews. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled or controlled clinical trials conducted in adults (>18yr) comparing 0.12% and 0.2% CHX were included. Plaque scores, parameters of periodontal inflammation and periodontal attachment loss were selected as primary outcome parameters. Only studies written in English were accepted. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Study quality (risk of bias) and heterogeneity was assessed. Where appropriate, meta-analysis was conducted using a random effect model. A narrative summary was also presented. RESULTS: Ten separate experiments were included in the review, and a meta-analysis of seven studies using the same plaque index found a significant difference between 0.2% and 0.12% CHX (p50.008). The Weighted Mean Difference for plaque based on the Quigley & Hein Plaque Index was 0.10 (95%CI [0.03-0.17]) (heterogeneity I2 50%, p=0.87). Three studies that compared 0.12% and 0.2% CHX mouthrinse products provided data on gingival inflammation but no difference between the two concentrations was found. No studies were found that compared the two CHX concentrations and evaluated the probing pocket depth and/or the periodontal attachment level. CONCLUSIONS: In comparing 0.12% and 0.2% CHX, information concerning the effect on gingival inflammation was sparse and no studies could be found that compared the two CHX concentrations and evaluated the probing pocket depth and/or the periodontal attachment level. With respect to plaque inhibition, the results showed a small but significant difference in favour of the 0.2% CHX concentration. However the clinical relevance of this difference is probably negligible.
DATA SOURCES: Medline, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) and the reference lists of potentially relevant studies and reviews. STUDY SELECTION: Randomised controlled or controlled clinical trials conducted in adults (>18yr) comparing 0.12% and 0.2% CHX were included. Plaque scores, parameters of periodontal inflammation and periodontal attachment loss were selected as primary outcome parameters. Only studies written in English were accepted. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Study quality (risk of bias) and heterogeneity was assessed. Where appropriate, meta-analysis was conducted using a random effect model. A narrative summary was also presented. RESULTS: Ten separate experiments were included in the review, and a meta-analysis of seven studies using the same plaque index found a significant difference between 0.2% and 0.12% CHX (p50.008). The Weighted Mean Difference for plaque based on the Quigley & Hein Plaque Index was 0.10 (95%CI [0.03-0.17]) (heterogeneity I2 50%, p=0.87). Three studies that compared 0.12% and 0.2% CHX mouthrinse products provided data on gingival inflammation but no difference between the two concentrations was found. No studies were found that compared the two CHX concentrations and evaluated the probing pocket depth and/or the periodontal attachment level. CONCLUSIONS: In comparing 0.12% and 0.2% CHX, information concerning the effect on gingival inflammation was sparse and no studies could be found that compared the two CHX concentrations and evaluated the probing pocket depth and/or the periodontal attachment level. With respect to plaque inhibition, the results showed a small but significant difference in favour of the 0.2% CHX concentration. However the clinical relevance of this difference is probably negligible.
Authors: Pauline Vörös; Oliver Dobrindt; Carsten Perka; Christoph Windisch; Georg Matziolis; Eric Röhner Journal: Int Orthop Date: 2014-01 Impact factor: 3.075