0
selected
-
1.
Efficacy of green tea-based mouthwashes on dental plaque and gingival inflammation: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Mathur, A, Gopalakrishnan, D, Mehta, V, Rizwan, SA, Shetiya, SH, Bagwe, S
Indian journal of dental research : official publication of Indian Society for Dental Research. 2018;(2):225-232
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
OBJECTIVES The purpose of this study was to conduct a systematic review and if appropriate a meta-analysis of the efficacy of daily rinsing with green tea-based mouthwashes in terms of plaque index (PI) and/or gingival index (GI) as compared to other mouthwashes in plaque-induced gingivitis patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, IndMed, Google Scholar, and major journals were searched for studies up to December 2016. A comprehensive search strategy was designed, and the eligible articles were independently screened for eligibility by two reviewers. Randomized controlled trials in which individuals were intervened with oral mouthwashes of interest were included. Where appropriate, a meta-analysis was performed and standardized mean differences (SMDs) for GI and PI were calculated. RESULTS A total of 9 articles out of the 311 titles met the eligibility criteria. A meta-analysis was performed for five studies that compared green tea-based mouthwashes with chlorhexidine (CHX). The SMD for PI was -0.14 (95% CI: -1.70, 1.43; P = 0.86 and I2 = 94%), while that for GI was 0.43 ((95% CI: -0.63, 1.49; P = 0.43, I2 = 89%). Both these estimates suffered from significant heterogeneity. For both PI and GI, two studies were in favor of green tea while three studies were in favor of CHX. CONCLUSIONS Green tea-based mouthwashes can be considered an alternative to CHX mouthwashes in sustaining oral hygiene, especially because of the added advantages provided by such herbal preparations.
-
2.
Fluoride mouthrinses for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents.
Marinho, VC, Chong, LY, Worthington, HV, Walsh, T
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2016;(7):CD002284
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Fluoride mouthrinses have been used extensively as a caries-preventive intervention in school-based programmes and by individuals at home. This is an update of the Cochrane review of fluoride mouthrinses for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents that was first published in 2003. OBJECTIVES The primary objective is to determine the effectiveness and safety of fluoride mouthrinses in preventing dental caries in the child and adolescent population.The secondary objective is to examine whether the effect of fluoride rinses is influenced by:• initial level of caries severity;• background exposure to fluoride in water (or salt), toothpastes or reported fluoride sources other than the study option(s); or• fluoride concentration (ppm F) or frequency of use (times per year). SEARCH METHODS We searched the following electronic databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (whole database, to 22 April 2016), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2016, Issue 3), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 22 April 2016), Embase Ovid (1980 to 22 April 2016), CINAHL EBSCO (the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, 1937 to 22 April 2016), LILACS BIREME (Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Information Database, 1982 to 22 April 2016), BBO BIREME (Bibliografia Brasileira de Odontologia; from 1986 to 22 April 2016), Proquest Dissertations and Theses (1861 to 22 April 2016) and Web of Science Conference Proceedings (1990 to 22 April 2016). We undertook a search for ongoing trials on the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (http://clinicaltrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform. We placed no restrictions on language or date of publication when searching electronic databases. We also searched reference lists of articles and contacted selected authors and manufacturers. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials where blind outcome assessment was stated or indicated, comparing fluoride mouthrinse with placebo or no treatment in children up to 16 years of age. Study duration had to be at least one year. The main outcome was caries increment measured by the change in decayed, missing and filled tooth surfaces in permanent teeth (D(M)FS). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS At least two review authors independently performed study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. We contacted study authors for additional information when required. The primary measure of effect was the prevented fraction (PF), that is, the difference in mean caries increments between treatment and control groups expressed as a percentage of the mean increment in the control group. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses where data could be pooled. We examined potential sources of heterogeneity in random-effects metaregression analyses. We collected adverse effects information from the included trials. MAIN RESULTS In this review, we included 37 trials involving 15,813 children and adolescents. All trials tested supervised use of fluoride mouthrinse in schools, with two studies also including home use. Almost all children received a fluoride rinse formulated with sodium fluoride (NaF), mostly on either a daily or weekly/fortnightly basis and at two main strengths, 230 or 900 ppm F, respectively. Most studies (28) were at high risk of bias, and nine were at unclear risk of bias.From the 35 trials (15,305 participants) that contributed data on permanent tooth surface for meta-analysis, the D(M)FS pooled PF was 27% (95% confidence interval (CI), 23% to 30%; I(2) = 42%) (moderate quality evidence). We found no significant association between estimates of D(M)FS prevented fractions and baseline caries severity, background exposure to fluorides, rinsing frequency or fluoride concentration in metaregression analyses. A funnel plot of the 35 studies in the D(M)FS PF meta-analysis indicated no relationship between prevented fraction and study precision (no evidence of reporting bias). The pooled estimate of D(M)FT PF was 23% (95% CI, 18% to 29%; I² = 54%), from the 13 trials that contributed data for the permanent teeth meta-analysis (moderate quality evidence).We found limited information concerning possible adverse effects or acceptability of the treatment regimen in the included trials. Three trials incompletely reported data on tooth staining, and one trial incompletely reported information on mucosal irritation/allergic reaction. None of the trials reported on acute adverse symptoms during treatment. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS This review found that supervised regular use of fluoride mouthrinse by children and adolescents is associated with a large reduction in caries increment in permanent teeth. We are moderately certain of the size of the effect. Most of the evidence evaluated use of fluoride mouthrinse supervised in a school setting, but the findings may be applicable to children in other settings with supervised or unsupervised rinsing, although the size of the caries-preventive effect is less clear. Any future research on fluoride mouthrinses should focus on head-to-head comparisons between different fluoride rinse features or fluoride rinses against other preventive strategies, and should evaluate adverse effects and acceptability.
-
3.
Oral rinses, mouthwashes and sprays for improving recovery following tonsillectomy.
Fedorowicz, Z, van Zuuren, EJ, Nasser, M, Carter, B, Al Langawi, JH
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2013;(9):CD007806
Abstract
BACKGROUND This is an update of a Cochrane review first published in The Cochrane Library in Issue 1, 2010 and previously updated in 2011.Tonsillectomy is the surgical removal of lymphoid tissue, the palatine tonsil, which is located at the back of the throat. It is still commonly performed for patients who have recurrent bouts of acute tonsillitis. Although tonsillectomy is considered a fairly minor procedure, pain and bleeding are two of the most common complications; either may delay recovery and can on occasion lead to hospital readmission. Postoperative tonsillectomy medication should provide an adequate reduction in morbidity while minimising side effects, therefore topical agents would seem to be an ideal, safe option. A number of mouthwashes and topical sprays are available which offer pain relief or can help to reduce bleeding in the immediate postoperative period. OBJECTIVES To assess the effects of oral rinses, mouthwashes and sprays in improving recovery following tonsillectomy. SEARCH METHODS We searched the Cochrane Ear, Nose and Throat Disorders Group Trials Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); PubMed; EMBASE; CINAHL; Web of Science; Cambridge Scientific Abstracts; ICTRP and additional sources for published and unpublished trials. The date of the most recent search was 4 July 2013. SELECTION CRITERIA We included randomised controlled trials in which oral rinses, mouthwashes and sprays, used pre- and postoperatively, have been compared with placebo in adults or children undergoing tonsillectomy, with or without adenoidectomy. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Two review authors selected trials for inclusion, assessed the risk of bias and extracted data independently. MAIN RESULTS We included seven trials (593 participants; 397 children and 196 adults). The period of follow-up ranged from 24 hours to two weeks. Few of the trials provided reliable data for the pre-specified primary outcomes and none for the secondary outcomes. The risk of bias was high in most of the included trials. Lidocaine spray appeared to be more effective than saline spray at reducing the severity of pain until the third postoperative day. A small number of participants experienced a burning or stinging sensation with benzydamine spray but not sufficient to discontinue usage. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS Poor reporting quality and inadequate data did not permit comprehensive and reliable conclusions to be made. Future trials should be well-constructed and pay more attention to the methods used to assess outcomes, the timing of the assessments, and the quality of reporting and subsequent analysis of the data.
-
4.
Prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia with oral antiseptics: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Labeau, SO, Van de Vyver, K, Brusselaers, N, Vogelaers, D, Blot, SI
The Lancet. Infectious diseases. 2011;(11):845-54
Abstract
BACKGROUND We did a systematic review and random effects meta-analysis of randomised trials to assess the effect of oral care with chlorhexidine or povidone-iodine on the prevalence of ventilator-associated pneumonia versus oral care without these antiseptics in adults. METHODS Studies were identified through PubMed, CINAHL, Web of Science, CENTRAL, and complementary manual searches. Eligible studies were randomised trials of mechanically ventilated adult patients receiving oral care with chlorhexidine or povidone-iodine. Relative risks (RR) and 95% CIs were calculated with the Mantel-Haenszel model and heterogeneity was assessed with the I(2) test. FINDINGS 14 studies were included (2481 patients), 12 investigating the effect of chlorhexidine (2341 patients) and two of povidone-iodine (140 patients). Overall, antiseptic use resulted in a significant risk reduction of ventilator-associated pneumonia (RR 0.67; 95% CI 0.50-0.88; p=0.004). Chlorhexidine application was shown to be effective (RR 0.72; 95% CI 0.55-0.94; p=0.02), whereas the effect resulting from povidone-iodine remains unclear (RR 0.39; 95% CI 0.11-1.36; p=0.14). Heterogeneity was moderate (I(2)=29%; p=0.16) for the trials using chlorhexidine and high (I(2)=67%; p=0.08) for those assessing povidone-iodine use. Favourable effects were more pronounced in subgroup analyses for 2% chlorhexidine (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.31-0.91), and in cardiosurgical studies (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.17-0.98). INTERPRETATION This analysis showed a beneficial effect of oral antiseptic use in prevention of ventilator-associated pneumonia. Clinicians should take these findings into account when providing oral care to intubated patients. FUNDING None.
-
5.
The effectiveness of commonly used mouthwashes for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis: a systematic review.
Potting, CM, Uitterhoeve, R, Op Reimer, WS, Van Achterberg, T
European journal of cancer care. 2006;(5):431-9
Abstract
Daily chlorhexidine mouthwash is often recommended for preventing chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis. Povidone-iodine, NaCl 0.9%, water salt soda solution and chamomile mouthwash are also recommended. However, the effectiveness of these mouthwashes is unclear. Therefore, we performed a systematic review to assess the effectiveness of mouthwashes in preventing and ameliorating chemotherapy-induced oral mucositis. Based on study quality, three out of five randomized controlled trials were included in a meta-analysis. The results failed to detect any beneficial effects of chlorhexidine as compared with sterile water, or NaCl 0.9%. Patients complained about negative side-effects of chlorhexidine, including teeth discoloration and alteration of taste in two of the five studies on chlorhexidine. The severity of oral mucositis was shown to be reduced by 30% using a povidone-iodine mouthwash as compared with sterile water in a single randomized controlled trial. These results do not support the use of chlorhexidine mouthwash to prevent oral mucositis.
-
6.
Fluoride mouthrinses for preventing dental caries in children and adolescents.
Marinho, VC, Higgins, JP, Logan, S, Sheiham, A
The Cochrane database of systematic reviews. 2003;(3):CD002284
Abstract
BACKGROUND Fluoride mouthrinses have been used extensively as a caries-preventive intervention in school-based programmes and individually at home. OBJECTIVES To determine the effectiveness and safety of fluoride mouthrinses in the prevention of dental caries in children and to examine factors potentially modifying their effect. SEARCH STRATEGY We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (May 2000), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library Issue 2, 2000), MEDLINE (1966 to January 2000), plus several other databases. We handsearched journals, reference lists of articles and contacted selected authors and manufacturers. SELECTION CRITERIA Randomised or quasi-randomised controlled trials with blind outcome assessment, comparing fluoride mouthrinse with placebo or no treatment in children up to 16 years during at least 1 year. The main outcome was caries increment measured by the change in decayed, missing and filled tooth surfaces (D(M)FS). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS Inclusion decisions, quality assessment and data extraction were duplicated in a random sample of one third of studies, and consensus achieved by discussion or a third party. Authors were contacted for missing data. The primary measure of effect was the prevented fraction (PF) that is the difference in mean caries increments between the treatment and control groups expressed as a percentage of the mean increment in the control group. Random effects meta-analyses were performed where data could be pooled. Potential sources of heterogeneity were examined in random effects metaregression analyses. MAIN RESULTS Thirty-six studies were included. For the 34 that contributed data for meta-analysis (involving 14,600 children) the D(M)FS pooled PF was 26% (95% confidence interval (CI), 23% to 30%; p < 0.0001). Heterogeneity was not substantial, but confirmed statistically (p = 0.008). No significant association between estimates of D(M)FS prevented fractions and baseline caries severity, background exposure to fluorides, rinsing frequency and fluoride concentration was found in metaregression analyses. A funnel plot of the 34 studies indicated no relationship between prevented fraction and study precision. There is little information concerning possible adverse effects or acceptability of treatment in the included trials. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS This review suggests that the supervised regular use of fluoride mouthrinse at two main strengths and rinsing frequencies is associated with a clear reduction in caries increment in children. In populations with caries increment of 0.25 D(M)FS per year, 16 children will need to use a fluoride mouthrinse (rather than a non-fluoride rinse) to avoid one D(M)FS; in populations with a caries increment of 2.14 D(M)FS per year, 2 children will need to rinse to avoid one D(M)FS. There is a need for complete reporting of side effects and acceptability data in fluoride mouthrinse trials.
-
7.
Evaluation of the effectiveness of a pre-brushing rinse in plaque removal: a meta-analysis.
Angelillo, IF, Nobile, CG, Pavia, M
Journal of clinical periodontology. 2002;(4):301-9
Abstract
OBJECTIVES A meta-analysis technique was used to pool data from studies to assess the effectiveness of the pre-brushing rinse PLAX on existing plaque and gingivitis. METHODS Studies were identified using MEDLINE and other sources, and grouped according to whether PLAX was used in short- or long-term treatment. The quality of trials was assessed by 2 independent readers. The DerSimonian and Laird random effects model was used. Meta-analyses were performed according to duration and type of PLAX treatment. In "1-day" studies, the effect of PLAX after rinsing and after rinsing and brushing was evaluated, whereas in longitudinal studies, this was done at several follow-up times. RESULTS A total of 19 studies were included and mean quality scores ranged from 0.13 to 0.60, for the study protocol from 0.18 to 0.70 and for data analysis and presentation from 0.05 to 0.53. In "1-day" studies, PLAX significantly reduced plaque after rinsing (difference=0.143; 95% CI=0.02-0.27;p=0.022), whereas no significant reduction was observed in post-brushing measures. In "longitudinal" studies, plaque was significantly reduced at 1-2 (difference=0.168; 95% CI=0.09-0.24; p<0.0001), 3-4 (difference=0.179; 95% CI=0.01-0.35; p=0.043), 12 (difference=0.288; 95% CI=0.21-0.37; p<0.0001) and 24 (difference=0.377; 95% CI=0.19-0.57; p=0.0001) weeks. The meta-analysis that evaluated gingivitis showed a significant reduction in inflammation with PLAX treatment at 12 (difference=0.209; 95% CI=0.17-0.25; p<0.0001) and 24 (difference=0.257; 95% CI=0.22-0.29; p<0.0001) weeks follow-up. CONCLUSIONS Although PLAX use appears to offer some benefit in plaque and gingivitis reduction, the clinical magnitude of the difference and the benefit on oral health are likely to be small.