The journal of evidence-based dental practice · 2026
EFFECTIVENESS OF DISINFECTION METHODS FOR TOOTHBRUSHES: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS.
СтатьяМетаанализСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Li Jiachen, Liu Qing, Liang Zhaojia, Li Kar Yan, Xing Xing, Lin Lifeng, Peng Simin, Yiu Cynthia Kar Yung, Wong Hai Ming
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To systematically evaluate and compare the effectiveness of various toothbrush disinfection methods.
METHODS: Four databases were searched for studies published between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2024. Following risk of bias assessment, meta- and subgroup analyses were performed to estimate the pooled effectiveness of chemical disinfection, home remedies and physical disinfection.
RESULTS: Forty-one studies comprising 8 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 33 non-RCTs were included. The 3 strategies significantly reduced bacterial load compared to controls (P < .001), with home remedies showing the greatest overall effect with a standardized mean difference (SMD) of -2.97 (95% CI: -4.33 to -1.61). Subgroup analyses revealed that 0.2% chlorhexidine (CHX) demonstrated an extremely large effect (SMD = -3.17, 95% CI: -5.32 to -1.02; P < .001), while 50% white vinegar treatment also demonstrated extremely large effects (SMD = -2.52, 95% CI: -4.50 to -0.55; P < .001). Ultraviolet (UV)-based disinfection exhibited statistically significant effects (SMD = -1.79, 95% CI: -3.52 to -0.07; P < .001). Despite overall effectiveness, substantial heterogeneity (I >75%) and 95% prediction intervals (PIs) that included zero were observed across studies. Overall, the certainty of evidence was deemed very low.
CONCLUSIONS: The 3 strategies effectively reduce toothbrush contamination. CHX remains the reference standard, while home remedies and physical disinfection show promise as accessible alternatives. However, due to high heterogeneity and risk of bias across studies, these finding should be interpreted with caution. Future research requires high-quality, standardized RCTs to confirm clinical efficacy and optimize protocols.
METHODS: Four databases were searched for studies published between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2024. Following risk of bias assessment, meta- and subgroup analyses were performed to estimate the pooled effectiveness of chemical disinfection, home remedies and physical disinfection.
RESULTS: Forty-one studies comprising 8 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and 33 non-RCTs were included. The 3 strategies significantly reduced bacterial load compared to controls (P < .001), with home remedies showing the greatest overall effect with a standardized mean difference (SMD) of -2.97 (95% CI: -4.33 to -1.61). Subgroup analyses revealed that 0.2% chlorhexidine (CHX) demonstrated an extremely large effect (SMD = -3.17, 95% CI: -5.32 to -1.02; P < .001), while 50% white vinegar treatment also demonstrated extremely large effects (SMD = -2.52, 95% CI: -4.50 to -0.55; P < .001). Ultraviolet (UV)-based disinfection exhibited statistically significant effects (SMD = -1.79, 95% CI: -3.52 to -0.07; P < .001). Despite overall effectiveness, substantial heterogeneity (I >75%) and 95% prediction intervals (PIs) that included zero were observed across studies. Overall, the certainty of evidence was deemed very low.
CONCLUSIONS: The 3 strategies effectively reduce toothbrush contamination. CHX remains the reference standard, while home remedies and physical disinfection show promise as accessible alternatives. However, due to high heterogeneity and risk of bias across studies, these finding should be interpreted with caution. Future research requires high-quality, standardized RCTs to confirm clinical efficacy and optimize protocols.