File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
Supplementary

Article: The effect of antiseptic oral sprays on dental plaque and gingival inflammation: A systematic review and meta-analysis

TitleThe effect of antiseptic oral sprays on dental plaque and gingival inflammation: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Authors
Keywordsgingivitis
meta‐analysis
oral hygiene
plaque
systematic review
Issue Date2019
PublisherWiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc. for International Federation of Dental Hygienists. The Journal's web site is located at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1601-5037
Citation
International Journal of Dental Hygiene, 2019, v. 17 n. 1, p. 16-26 How to Cite?
AbstractObjectives: To review the effectiveness of antiseptic oral sprays on oral health. Methods and materials: Three electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library and Web of Science) were systematically searched to identify relevant studies. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effect of oral sprays to placebo/control spray or mouthrinse on dental plaque and gingival inflammation were included. Results: Among a total of 996 papers, 20 effective studies fulfilled the selection criteria, and 8 studies were suitable for inclusion in meta‐analyses. A meta‐analysis of three studies using a 0.2% chlorhexidine (CHX) spray intervention, without prophylaxis at baseline, showed reductions in Plaque Index (PI) (Silness and Löe) and Gingival Index (GI) (Silness and Löe) scores of 0.74 (95% CI: −1.03 to −0.45) and 0.22 (95% CI: −0.38 to −0.06), respectively. Five studies provided a prophylaxis for subjects before study initiation. Three of these five studies used 0.2% CHX spray. A meta‐analysis demonstrated an increase of 0.18 (95% CI: −0.01 to 0.37) in PI (Silness and Löe) 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 (Quigley and Hein) scores. Of the RCTs not amenable to meta‐analysis, eight studies reported significant improvements in PI and GI scores. Conclusions: Available evidence suggests that oral sprays are an acceptable delivery method for antiseptic agents. Further high‐quality studies are warranted to determine the effectiveness of alternative chemotherapeutic agents delivered via oral sprays on oral health.
DescriptionLink to Free access
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/279135
ISSN
2017 Impact Factor: 1.38
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.400

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorZHANG, J-
dc.contributor.authorMalik, N Ab-
dc.contributor.authorMcGrath, C-
dc.contributor.authorLam, OLT-
dc.date.accessioned2019-10-21T02:20:13Z-
dc.date.available2019-10-21T02:20:13Z-
dc.date.issued2019-
dc.identifier.citationInternational Journal of Dental Hygiene, 2019, v. 17 n. 1, p. 16-26-
dc.identifier.issn1601-5029-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/279135-
dc.descriptionLink to Free access-
dc.description.abstractObjectives: To review the effectiveness of antiseptic oral sprays on oral health. Methods and materials: Three electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library and Web of Science) were systematically searched to identify relevant studies. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effect of oral sprays to placebo/control spray or mouthrinse on dental plaque and gingival inflammation were included. Results: Among a total of 996 papers, 20 effective studies fulfilled the selection criteria, and 8 studies were suitable for inclusion in meta‐analyses. A meta‐analysis of three studies using a 0.2% chlorhexidine (CHX) spray intervention, without prophylaxis at baseline, showed reductions in Plaque Index (PI) (Silness and Löe) and Gingival Index (GI) (Silness and Löe) scores of 0.74 (95% CI: −1.03 to −0.45) and 0.22 (95% CI: −0.38 to −0.06), respectively. Five studies provided a prophylaxis for subjects before study initiation. Three of these five studies used 0.2% CHX spray. A meta‐analysis demonstrated an increase of 0.18 (95% CI: −0.01 to 0.37) in PI (Silness and Löe) 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 (Quigley and Hein) scores. Of the RCTs not amenable to meta‐analysis, eight studies reported significant improvements in PI and GI scores. Conclusions: Available evidence suggests that oral sprays are an acceptable delivery method for antiseptic agents. Further high‐quality studies are warranted to determine the effectiveness of alternative chemotherapeutic agents delivered via oral sprays on oral health.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherWiley-Blackwell Publishing, Inc. for International Federation of Dental Hygienists. The Journal's web site is located at http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1601-5037-
dc.relation.ispartofInternational Journal of Dental Hygiene-
dc.rightsThis is the peer reviewed version of the following article: [FULL CITE], which has been published in final form at [Link to final article using the DOI]. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived Versions.-
dc.subjectgingivitis-
dc.subjectmeta‐analysis-
dc.subjectoral hygiene-
dc.subjectplaque-
dc.subjectsystematic review-
dc.titleThe effect of antiseptic oral sprays on dental plaque and gingival inflammation: A systematic review and meta-analysis-
dc.typeArticle-
dc.identifier.emailMcGrath, C: mcgrathc@hkucc.hku.hk-
dc.identifier.authorityMcGrath, C=rp00037-
dc.identifier.authorityLam, OLT=rp01567-
dc.description.naturelink_to_subscribed_fulltext-
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/idh.12331-
dc.identifier.pmid29405627-
dc.identifier.scopuseid_2-s2.0-85041559856-
dc.identifier.hkuros307929-
dc.identifier.volume17-
dc.identifier.issue1-
dc.identifier.spage16-
dc.identifier.epage26-
dc.publisher.placeUnited States-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats