J Zhang1, N Ab Malik2, C McGrath2, Olt Lam1. 1. Prosthodontics, Faculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China. 2. Periodontology and Public Health, Faculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, China.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To review the effectiveness of antiseptic oral sprays on oral health. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Three electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library and Web of Science) were systematically searched to identify relevant studies. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effect of oral sprays to placebo/control spray or mouthrinse on dental plaque and gingival inflammation were included. RESULTS: Among a total of 996 papers, 20 effective studies fulfilled the selection criteria, and 8 studies were suitable for inclusion in meta-analyses. A meta-analysis of three studies using a 0.2% chlorhexidine (CHX) spray intervention, without prophylaxis at baseline, showed reductions in Plaque Index (PI) (Silness and Löe) and Gingival Index (GI) (Silness and Löe) scores of 0.74 (95% CI: -1.03 to -0.45) and 0.22 (95% CI: -0.38 to -0.06), respectively. Five studies provided a prophylaxis for subjects before study initiation. Three of these five studies used 0.2% CHX spray. A meta-analysis demonstrated an increase of 0.18 (95% CI: -0.01 to 0.37) in PI (Silness and Löe) scores. Two RCTs compared 0.12% and 0.2% CHX spray, and a meta-analysis showed increases of 1.71 (95% CI: 1.27 to 2.14) and 1.58 (95% CI: 1.23 to 1.93), respectively, in PI (Quigley and Hein) scores. Of the RCTs not amenable to meta-analysis, eight studies reported significant improvements in PI and GI scores. CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence suggests that oral sprays are an acceptable delivery method for antiseptic agents. Further high-quality studies are warranted to determine the effectiveness of alternative chemotherapeutic agents delivered via oral sprays on oral health.
OBJECTIVES: To review the effectiveness of antiseptic oral sprays on oral health. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Three electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library and Web of Science) were systematically searched to identify relevant studies. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effect of oral sprays to placebo/control spray or mouthrinse on dental plaque and gingival inflammation were included. RESULTS: Among a total of 996 papers, 20 effective studies fulfilled the selection criteria, and 8 studies were suitable for inclusion in meta-analyses. A meta-analysis of three studies using a 0.2% chlorhexidine (CHX) spray intervention, without prophylaxis at baseline, showed reductions in Plaque Index (PI) (Silness and Löe) and Gingival Index (GI) (Silness and Löe) scores of 0.74 (95% CI: -1.03 to -0.45) and 0.22 (95% CI: -0.38 to -0.06), respectively. Five studies provided a prophylaxis for subjects before study initiation. Three of these five studies used 0.2% CHX spray. A meta-analysis demonstrated an increase of 0.18 (95% CI: -0.01 to 0.37) in PI (Silness and Löe) scores. Two RCTs compared 0.12% and 0.2% CHX spray, and a meta-analysis showed increases of 1.71 (95% CI: 1.27 to 2.14) and 1.58 (95% CI: 1.23 to 1.93), respectively, in PI (Quigley and Hein) scores. Of the RCTs not amenable to meta-analysis, eight studies reported significant improvements in PI and GI scores. CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence suggests that oral sprays are an acceptable delivery method for antiseptic agents. Further high-quality studies are warranted to determine the effectiveness of alternative chemotherapeutic agents delivered via oral sprays on oral health.