OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to systematically review the current literature on the clinical effects of sugar-free chewing gum on plaque indices and parameters of gingival inflammation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The MEDLINE-PubMed, Cochrane-CENTRAL and EMBASE databases were searched up to 20 April 2012 to identify any appropriate studies. Plaque indices and parameters of gingival inflammation were selected as outcome variables. RESULTS: An independent screening of the 594 unique titles and abstracts identified six non-brushing and four brushing studies that met the eligibility criteria. In the non-brushing studies, the use of chewing gum did not significantly affect the parameters of interest. In the descriptive analysis of the brushing studies, four of five comparisons showed a statistically significant effect in favour of the sugar-free chewing gum with respect to plaque scores. The meta-analysis for the Quigley & Hein (J Am Dent Assoc 1962; 65: 26) plaque index scores in the brushing studies also showed a significant difference (DiffM -0.24, 95% CI [-0.41; -0.08]). For bleeding tendency, the descriptive analysis showed that one of the two comparisons identified a significant difference in favour of chewing gum. The meta-analysis, however, did not substantiate this difference. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this systematic review, it may be concluded that the use of sugar-free chewing gum as an adjunct to toothbrushing provides a small but significant reduction in plaque scores. Chewing sugar-free gum showed no significant effect on gingivitis scores. In the absence of brushing, no effect on plaque and gingivitis scores could be established.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to systematically review the current literature on the clinical effects of sugar-free chewing gum on plaque indices and parameters of gingival inflammation. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The MEDLINE-PubMed, Cochrane-CENTRAL and EMBASE databases were searched up to 20 April 2012 to identify any appropriate studies. Plaque indices and parameters of gingival inflammation were selected as outcome variables. RESULTS: An independent screening of the 594 unique titles and abstracts identified six non-brushing and four brushing studies that met the eligibility criteria. In the non-brushing studies, the use of chewing gum did not significantly affect the parameters of interest. In the descriptive analysis of the brushing studies, four of five comparisons showed a statistically significant effect in favour of the sugar-free chewing gum with respect to plaque scores. The meta-analysis for the Quigley & Hein (J Am Dent Assoc 1962; 65: 26) plaque index scores in the brushing studies also showed a significant difference (DiffM -0.24, 95% CI [-0.41; -0.08]). For bleeding tendency, the descriptive analysis showed that one of the two comparisons identified a significant difference in favour of chewing gum. The meta-analysis, however, did not substantiate this difference. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of this systematic review, it may be concluded that the use of sugar-free chewing gum as an adjunct to toothbrushing provides a small but significant reduction in plaque scores. Chewing sugar-free gum showed no significant effect on gingivitis scores. In the absence of brushing, no effect on plaque and gingivitis scores could be established.
Authors: Stefan W Wessel; Henny C van der Mei; David Morando; Anje M Slomp; Betsy van de Belt-Gritter; Amarnath Maitra; Henk J Busscher Journal: PLoS One Date: 2015-01-20 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Bart J F Keijser; Tim J van den Broek; Dagmar E Slot; Lodewic van Twillert; Jolanda Kool; Clémentine Thabuis; Michel Ossendrijver; Fridus A van der Weijden; Roy C Montijn Journal: Front Microbiol Date: 2018-03-06 Impact factor: 5.640