4.4 Review

Efficacy of preprocedural mouthrinses in the reduction of microorganisms in aerosol A systematic review

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN DENTAL ASSOCIATION
卷 150, 期 12, 页码 1015-+

出版社

AMER DENTAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1016/j.adaj.2019.06.024

关键词

Mouthrinses; preprocedural; aerosols; chlorhexidine; essential oils; cetylpyridinium chloride; microorganisms; dental office; cross-infection

资金

  1. Coordenacao de Aperfeicoamento de Pessoal de Nivel Superior-Brasil (CAPES) [001]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. The authors of this systematic review aimed to evaluate the efficacy of preprocedural mouthrinses in reducing the number of microorganisms disseminated by means of the aerosol generated via dental procedures when compared with a placebo, water, or no mouthrinse. Types of Studies Reviewed. The authors included only randomized clinical trials. They searched MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Google Scholar, and Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature databases through May 31, 2019. They performed random-effects metaanalysis for reduction of the number of colony-forming units (CFU) in the dental aerosol. Results. Of 770 potentially relevant articles, the authors included 13 randomized clinical trials in which researchers studied the efficacy of chlorhexidine, essential oils, cetylpyridinium chloride, and herbal products. Meta-analysis of 12 studies showed that mouthrinses with chlorhexidine, essential oils, and cetylpyridinium chloride significantly reduced the number of CFU. Overall, the use of a preprocedural mouthrinse resulted in a mean reduction in the number of CFUs of 64.8% (95% confidence interval, 50.4% to 79.3%; I-2 = 37%) compared with control. None of the included studies presented a low risk of bias. Practical Implications. Some dental procedures result in dissemination of microorganisms in the aerosol in the dental office. There is moderate evidence that preprocedural mouthrinses significantly reduce the number of microorganisms in the dental aerosol.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据