Journal of clinical periodontology · 2019
Efficacy of adjunctive anti-plaque chemical agents in managing gingivitis: A systematic review and network meta-analyses.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАСистематический обзорNetwork Meta-AnalysisНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Figuero Elena, Herrera David, Tobías Aurelio, Serrano Jorge, Roldán Silvia, Escribano Marta, Martín Conchita
Аннотация
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.
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.