Elena Figuero1, David Herrera1, Aurelio Tobías2, Jorge Serrano1, Silvia Roldán1, Marta Escribano1, Conchita Martín3. 1. ETEP (Etiology and Therapy of Periodontal Diseases) Research Group, University Complutense, Madrid, Spain. 2. Institute of Environmental Assessment and Water Research (IDAEA), Spanish Council for Scientific Research (CSIC), Barcelona, Spain. 3. BIOCRAN (Craniofacial Biology) Research Group, University Complutense, Madrid, Spain.
Abstract
AIM: The aim of this network meta-analysis (NMA) was to compare the efficacy of different oral hygiene products for chemical biofilm control, in 6-month home-use, randomized clinical trials (RCTs), in terms of changes in gingival index (GI). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Six-month RCTs assessing GI were identified and screened for inclusion. Relevant information was extracted, and quality and potential risk of bias were estimated. Mean differences between baseline and end were calculated to obtain standardized mean differences (SMDs). NMA protocols were applied to assess direct and indirect comparisons among products using Löe & Silness GI, modified GI and gingival severity index. RESULTS: Fifty-three papers were included, 19 studies for mouth rinses, 32 for dentifrices, comprising data from 5,775 and 2,682 subjects, respectively. When ranking treatments, similar results were observed for all tested dentifrices, with the lowest effect observed for sanguinarine and baking soda. For mouth rinses, essential oils, triclosan-copolymer, chlorhexidine (at concentrations ≥ 0.10%) and cetylpyridinium chloride (>0.05%) demonstrated the greatest effect. CONCLUSION: Although NMA revealed significant differences when comparing placebo versus some active agents, when comparing among active agents, no differences were found for dentifrices, while mouth rinses containing essential oils showed the greatest effect on GI scores.
AIM: The aim of this network meta-analysis (NMA) was to compare the efficacy of different oral hygiene products for chemical biofilm control, in 6-month home-use, randomized clinical trials (RCTs), in terms of changes in gingival index (GI). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Six-month RCTs assessing GI were identified and screened for inclusion. Relevant information was extracted, and quality and potential risk of bias were estimated. Mean differences between baseline and end were calculated to obtain standardized mean differences (SMDs). NMA protocols were applied to assess direct and indirect comparisons among products using Löe & Silness GI, modified GI and gingival severity index. RESULTS: Fifty-three papers were included, 19 studies for mouth rinses, 32 for dentifrices, comprising data from 5,775 and 2,682 subjects, respectively. When ranking treatments, similar results were observed for all tested dentifrices, with the lowest effect observed for sanguinarine and baking soda. For mouth rinses, essential oils, triclosan-copolymer, chlorhexidine (at concentrations ≥ 0.10%) and cetylpyridinium chloride (>0.05%) demonstrated the greatest effect. CONCLUSION: Although NMA revealed significant differences when comparing placebo versus some active agents, when comparing among active agents, no differences were found for dentifrices, while mouth rinses containing essential oils showed the greatest effect on GI scores.
Authors: Victor B Hsue; Kyohei Itamura; Arthur W Wu; Elisa A Illing; Kevin J Sokoloski; Bree A Weaver; Benjamin P Anthony; Nathan Hughes; Jonathan Y Ting; Thomas S Higgins Journal: Adv Exp Med Biol Date: 2021 Impact factor: 2.622
Authors: Daniel J Erchick; Nitin K Agrawal; Subarna K Khatry; Joanne Katz; Steven C LeClerq; Mark A Reynolds; Luke C Mullany Journal: Community Dent Oral Epidemiol Date: 2020-07-13 Impact factor: 3.383
Authors: Sophia R Schwarz; Stefanie Hirsch; Andreas Hiergeist; Christian Kirschneck; Denise Muehler; Karl-Anton Hiller; Tim Maisch; Ali Al-Ahmad; André Gessner; Wolfgang Buchalla; Fabian Cieplik Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2020-10-08 Impact factor: 3.573