Juliana Balbinot Hilgert1,2, Jessye Melgarejo do Amaral Giordani2, Raphael Freitas de Souza3,4, Eliana Márcia Da Ros Wendland5, Otavio Pereira D'Avila1, Fernando Neves Hugo1. 1. Postgraduate Program in Dentistry, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil. 2. Postgraduate Program in Epidemiology, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Brazil. 3. Department of Dental Materials and Prosthetics, University of São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, Brazil. 4. Division of Oral Health and Society, McGill University, Montreal, Québec, Canada. 5. Department of Public Health, Federal University of Health Sciences of Porto Alegre, Porto Alegre, Brazil.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of different interventions for treating or preventing denture stomatitis (DS). DESIGN: Systematic review. SETTING: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any agent or procedure prescribed to treat or prevent DS in adults. PARTICIPANTS: Older adults with denture stomatitis. MEASUREMENTS: There were two main outcomes reported in the trials included in this review: clinical signs of DS and remaining presence of yeast. There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication. The search period was up to February 2016. RESULTS: Thirty-five studies were included in the systematic review, with 32 judged as having high risk of bias. Three RCTs compared nystatin with placebo and found a significant effect on the reduction of clinical signs of stomatitis (risk ratio (RR) = 0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.36-0.72), four RCTs compared nystatin with placebo and found a significant effect on mycological assessment (RR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.46-0.80). Five studies of disinfectant agents also showed a significant effect in comparison with an inactive agent (RR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.30-0.92) in clinical assessment. No evidence was found of an effect of miconazole, amphotericin, or imidazolic drugs. No RCT evaluated the effectiveness of preventive approaches. CONCLUSION: The results are supportive of the use of nystatin and disinfecting agents in the treatment of DS, but clinicians need to be aware that individual studies had high risk of bias and that the overall quality of the individual reports was judged to be low.
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of different interventions for treating or preventing denture stomatitis (DS). DESIGN: Systematic review. SETTING: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any agent or procedure prescribed to treat or prevent DS in adults. PARTICIPANTS: Older adults with denture stomatitis. MEASUREMENTS: There were two main outcomes reported in the trials included in this review: clinical signs of DS and remaining presence of yeast. There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication. The search period was up to February 2016. RESULTS: Thirty-five studies were included in the systematic review, with 32 judged as having high risk of bias. Three RCTs compared nystatin with placebo and found a significant effect on the reduction of clinical signs of stomatitis (risk ratio (RR) = 0.51, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.36-0.72), four RCTs compared nystatin with placebo and found a significant effect on mycological assessment (RR = 0.61, 95% CI = 0.46-0.80). Five studies of disinfectant agents also showed a significant effect in comparison with an inactive agent (RR = 0.52, 95% CI = 0.30-0.92) in clinical assessment. No evidence was found of an effect of miconazole, amphotericin, or imidazolic drugs. No RCT evaluated the effectiveness of preventive approaches. CONCLUSION: The results are supportive of the use of nystatin and disinfecting agents in the treatment of DS, but clinicians need to be aware that individual studies had high risk of bias and that the overall quality of the individual reports was judged to be low.
Authors: Jacqueline de Oliveira Zoccolotti; Alberto José Cavalheiro; Camilla Olga Tasso; Caroline Correa de Oliveira; Beatriz Ribeiro Ribas; Túlio Morandin Ferrisse; Carlos Alberto de Souza Costa; Janaina Habib Jorge Journal: Arch Microbiol Date: 2022-08-20 Impact factor: 2.667
Authors: Raphael F de Souza; Muhammad Faheem Khiyani; Carolina A L Chaves; Jocelyne Feine; Jean Barbeau; Ramón Fuentes; Eduardo Borie; Luciana C Crizostomo; Claudia H Silva-Lovato; Pierre Rompre; Elham Emami Journal: Trials Date: 2017-05-05 Impact factor: 2.279