4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Efficacy of inter-dental mechanical plaque control in managing gingivitis - a meta-review

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY
卷 42, 期 -, 页码 S92-S105

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.12363

关键词

dental plaque; floss; gingivitis; inter-dental brushes; Inter-dental cleaning; meta-review; systematic review

资金

  1. Colgate
  2. Dentaid
  3. GABA
  4. Lactona
  5. Oral-B
  6. Philips
  7. Procter Gamble
  8. Sara Lee
  9. Sunstar
  10. Unilever

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Focused questionWhat is the effect of mechanical inter-dental plaque removal in addition to toothbrushing, on managing gingivitis using various formats of inter-dental self-care in adults based on evidence gathered from existing systematic reviews? Material & MethodsThree Internet sources were searched by a strategy designed to include systematic reviews on inter-dental cleaning devices. Plaque and gingivitis scores were the primary parameters of interest. Characteristics of selected papers were extracted. The potential risk of bias was estimated and the acquired evidence was graded. ResultsScreening of 395 papers resulted in six systematic reviews. Two papers evaluated the efficacy of dental floss, two of inter-dental brushes (IDB), one of woodsticks and one of the oral irrigator. Weak evidence of unclear or small magnitude was retrieved that supported dental floss, woodsticks and the oral irrigator to reduce gingivitis in addition to toothbrushing. No concomitant evidence for an effect on plaque emerged. There is moderate evidence that IDBs in combination with toothbrushing reduce both plaque and gingivitis. ConclusionEvidence suggests that inter-dental cleaning with IDBs is the most effective method for inter-dental plaque removal. The majority of available studies fail to demonstrate that flossing is generally effective in plaque removal. All investigated devices for inter-dental self-care seem to support the management of gingivitis, however, to a varying extend.

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

4.6
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