Georgios A Kotsakis1, Qinshu Lian2, Andreas L Ioannou3, Bryan S Michalowicz4, Mike T John5, Haitao Chu2. 1. Department of Periodontics and Clinical Periodontal Research Laboratory, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States. 2. Department of Biostatistics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States. 3. Department of Periodontics, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, Houston, TX, United States. 4. Department of Periodontics, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States. 5. Department of Diagnostic and Biological Sciences, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, United States.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A wide selection of Interdental Oral Hygiene (IOH) aids is available to consumers. Recommendations for selection are, however, limited by the lack of direct comparisons in available studies. We aimed to assess the comparative efficacy of IOH aids using Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis (BNMA). METHODS: Two independent reviewers performed a systematic literature review of randomized clinical trials assessing IOH aids, based on a focused question. Gingival inflammation (Gingival Index (GI), Bleeding-on-probing (BOP)) was the primary outcome and plaque and probing depth were secondary outcomes A random-effects arm-based BNMA model was run for each outcome; posterior medians and 95% credible-intervals (CIs) summarized marginal distributions of parameters. RESULTS: A two-phase selection process identified 22 trials assessing 10 IOH aids as brushing adjuncts. Interdental brushes (IB) yielded the largest reduction in GI (0.23 [95% CI: 0.09, 0.37]) as toothbrushing adjuncts, followed by water-jet (WJ) (0.19 [95% CI: 0.14, 0.24]). Rankings based on posterior probabilities revealed that IB and WJ had the highest probability of being "best" (64.7% and 27.4%, respectively) for GI reduction, whereas the probability for toothpick and floss being the "best" IOH aids was near zero. Notably, except for toothpicks, all IOH aids were better at reducing GI as compared with control. CONCLUSIONS: BNMA enabled us to quantitatively evaluate IOH aids and provide a global ranking of their efficacy. Interdental brushes and water-jets ranked high for reducing gingival bleeding, whereas toothpicks and floss ranked last. The patient-perceived benefit of IOH aids is not clear because gingival inflammation measures are physical indicators of periodontal health.
BACKGROUND: A wide selection of Interdental Oral Hygiene (IOH) aids is available to consumers. Recommendations for selection are, however, limited by the lack of direct comparisons in available studies. We aimed to assess the comparative efficacy of IOH aids using Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis (BNMA). METHODS: Two independent reviewers performed a systematic literature review of randomized clinical trials assessing IOH aids, based on a focused question. Gingival inflammation (Gingival Index (GI), Bleeding-on-probing (BOP)) was the primary outcome and plaque and probing depth were secondary outcomes A random-effects arm-based BNMA model was run for each outcome; posterior medians and 95% credible-intervals (CIs) summarized marginal distributions of parameters. RESULTS: A two-phase selection process identified 22 trials assessing 10 IOH aids as brushing adjuncts. Interdental brushes (IB) yielded the largest reduction in GI (0.23 [95% CI: 0.09, 0.37]) as toothbrushing adjuncts, followed by water-jet (WJ) (0.19 [95% CI: 0.14, 0.24]). Rankings based on posterior probabilities revealed that IB and WJ had the highest probability of being "best" (64.7% and 27.4%, respectively) for GI reduction, whereas the probability for toothpick and floss being the "best" IOH aids was near zero. Notably, except for toothpicks, all IOH aids were better at reducing GI as compared with control. CONCLUSIONS:BNMA enabled us to quantitatively evaluate IOH aids and provide a global ranking of their efficacy. Interdental brushes and water-jets ranked high for reducing gingival bleeding, whereas toothpicks and floss ranked last. The patient-perceived benefit of IOH aids is not clear because gingival inflammation measures are physical indicators of periodontal health.
Authors: Ananda B Londero; Ana Paula P Reiniger; Rodrigo C R Tavares; Ciandra M Ferreira; Ulf M E Wikesjö; Karla Z Kantorski; Carlos Heitor Cunha Moreira Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2022-04-22 Impact factor: 3.606
Authors: Gerson Pedro José Langa; Pedro Paulo de Almeida Dantas; Gloria Marcela Ramírez Lemus; Carlos Guillermo Benítez Silva; Jonathan Meza-Mauricio; Francisco Wilker Mustafa Gomes Muniz Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2022-01-09 Impact factor: 3.606
Authors: Avraham Zini; Sigal Mazor; Hans Timm; Matthew L Barker; Julie M Grender; Robert W Gerlach; Aaron R Biesbrock Journal: Can J Dent Hyg Date: 2021-06-01
Authors: Fridus van der Weijden; Dagmar Else Slot; Eveline van der Sluijs; Nienke Lisette Hennequin-Hoenderdos Journal: Int J Dent Hyg Date: 2021-05-29 Impact factor: 2.725
Authors: Jocelyne Gare; Aida Kanoute; Nicolas Meda; Stephane Viennot; Denis Bourgeois; Florence Carrouel Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-07-05 Impact factor: 3.390