Finnish
Albanian
Arabic
Armenian
Azerbaijani
Belarusian
Bengali
Bosnian
Catalan
Czech
Danish
Deutsch
Dutch
English
Estonian
Finnish
Français
Greek
Haitian Creole
Hebrew
Hindi
Hungarian
Icelandic
Indonesian
Irish
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Latvian
Lithuanian
Macedonian
Mongolian
Norwegian
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Romanian
Russian
Serbian
Slovak
Slovenian
Spanish
Swahili
Swedish
Turkish
Ukrainian
Vietnamese
Български
中文(简体)
中文(繁體)
Evidence-Based Dentistry 2018-Oct

Limited evidence for the effectiveness of antiseptic sprays for control of plaque and gingival inflammation.

Vain rekisteröityneet käyttäjät voivat kääntää artikkeleita
Kirjaudu sisään Rekisteröidy
Linkki tallennetaan leikepöydälle
Derek Richards

Avainsanat

Abstrakti

Data sourcesPubMed, the Cochrane Library and Web of Science databases.Study selectionRandomised controlled trials (RCTs) providing information on the effectiveness of oral sprays on plaque or gingival inflammation and published in English were considered.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently screened the studies, abstracted data and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane tool. Disagreements were resolved by discussion and consensus. Estimates from suitable studies were pooled using a random effects meta-analysis.ResultsTwenty trials involving a total of 720 patients were included. The majority of the studies (14) used chlorhexidine (0.12 or 0.2%). The other six studies used Hyaluronic acid (HA); 0.2% hexetidine; 0.2% stannous fluoride; triclosan (TRN); cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC); and benzydamine hydrochloride (B-HCl). Ten studies involved physically or mentally challenged patients, six trials involved healthy adults. Significant reductions in dental plaque ranging from 22% to 78% were reported in 14 studies with 11 studies reporting significant improvement in gingival health with 13% to 75% reductions in Gingival Index (GI) scores. Meta-analysis (three studies) of 0.2% chlorhexidine (CHX) spray intervention, without prophylaxis at baseline, showed reductions in Plaque Index (PI) = 0.74 (95%CI: -1.03 to -0.45) and Gingival Index (GI) = 0.22 (95% CI: -0.38 to -0.06). Five studies provided a prophylaxis before study initiation, three used 0.2% CHX spray. Meta-analysis demonstrated an increase of 0.18 (95% CI: -0.01 to 0.37) in PI 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 scores.ConclusionsThe authors concluded that the available evidence suggests that oral sprays are an acceptable delivery method for antiseptic agents. CHX is the most widely investigated antiseptic agent used in oral sprays, and meta-analyses suggested it to be effective in reducing plaque scores and gingival inflammation. However, considering that bias to some extent existed in the included studies, the findings in this review should be interpreted with caution.

Liity facebook-sivullemme

Täydellisin lääketieteellinen tietokanta tieteen tukemana

  • Toimii 55 kielellä
  • Yrttilääkkeet tieteen tukemana
  • Yrttien tunnistaminen kuvan perusteella
  • Interaktiivinen GPS-kartta - merkitse yrtit sijaintiin (tulossa pian)
  • Lue hakuusi liittyviä tieteellisiä julkaisuja
  • Hae lääkekasveja niiden vaikutusten perusteella
  • Järjestä kiinnostuksesi ja pysy ajan tasalla uutisista, kliinisistä tutkimuksista ja patenteista

Kirjoita oire tai sairaus ja lue yrtteistä, jotka saattavat auttaa, kirjoita yrtti ja näe taudit ja oireet, joita vastaan sitä käytetään.
* Kaikki tiedot perustuvat julkaistuun tieteelliseen tutkimukseen

Google Play badgeApp Store badge