File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  Links for fulltext
     (May Require Subscription)
  • Find via Find It@HKUL
Supplementary

Conference Paper: 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
Issue Date2016
PublisherSage Publications, Inc. The Journal's web site is located at http://jdr.sagepub.com/
Citation
The 94th General Session & Exhibition of the IADR, 3rd Meeting of the IADR Asia Pacific Region & 35th Annual Meeting of the IADR Korean Division, Seoul, Korea, 22-25 June 2016. In Journal of Dental Research, 2016, v. 95 Spec. Iss. B, abstract no. 321 How to Cite?
AbstractOBJECTIVES: To review the effectiveness of antiseptic oral sprays on dental plaque and gingival inflammation. METHODS: Three electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) were systematically searched to identify relevant studies. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the use of oral sprays 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 four studies using a 0.2% CHX spray intervention, without prophylaxis at baseline, showed reductions in PI (Silness and Löe) and GI (Silness and Löe) scores of 0.64 (95% CI, -0.93 to -0.35) and 0.22 (95% CI, -0.32 to -0.11), respectively. Four studies provided a prophylaxis for subjects prior to study initiation. Two of these four studies used 0.2% CHX. A meta-analysis demonstrated an increase of 0.08 (95% CI, -0.02 to 0.18) in PI (Silness and Löe) scores. Two RCTs compared 0.12% and 0.2% CHX solutions, 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 twelve 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 chlorhexidine. Further high quality studies are warranted to determine the effectiveness of alternative chemotherapeutic agents delivered via oral sprays on dental plaque and gingival inflammation.
DescriptionOral Session - Dental Plaque Control I: no. 321
Persistent Identifierhttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/227514
ISSN
2015 Impact Factor: 4.602
2015 SCImago Journal Rankings: 1.714

 

DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorZhang, J-
dc.contributor.authorAb Malik, NB-
dc.contributor.authorMcGrath, CPJ-
dc.contributor.authorLam, OLT-
dc.date.accessioned2016-07-18T09:11:10Z-
dc.date.available2016-07-18T09:11:10Z-
dc.date.issued2016-
dc.identifier.citationThe 94th General Session & Exhibition of the IADR, 3rd Meeting of the IADR Asia Pacific Region & 35th Annual Meeting of the IADR Korean Division, Seoul, Korea, 22-25 June 2016. In Journal of Dental Research, 2016, v. 95 Spec. Iss. B, abstract no. 321-
dc.identifier.issn0022-0345-
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10722/227514-
dc.descriptionOral Session - Dental Plaque Control I: no. 321-
dc.description.abstractOBJECTIVES: To review the effectiveness of antiseptic oral sprays on dental plaque and gingival inflammation. METHODS: Three electronic databases (PubMed, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science) were systematically searched to identify relevant studies. Only randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the use of oral sprays 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 four studies using a 0.2% CHX spray intervention, without prophylaxis at baseline, showed reductions in PI (Silness and Löe) and GI (Silness and Löe) scores of 0.64 (95% CI, -0.93 to -0.35) and 0.22 (95% CI, -0.32 to -0.11), respectively. Four studies provided a prophylaxis for subjects prior to study initiation. Two of these four studies used 0.2% CHX. A meta-analysis demonstrated an increase of 0.08 (95% CI, -0.02 to 0.18) in PI (Silness and Löe) scores. Two RCTs compared 0.12% and 0.2% CHX solutions, 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 twelve 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 chlorhexidine. Further high quality studies are warranted to determine the effectiveness of alternative chemotherapeutic agents delivered via oral sprays on dental plaque and gingival inflammation.-
dc.languageeng-
dc.publisherSage Publications, Inc. The Journal's web site is located at http://jdr.sagepub.com/-
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of Dental Research-
dc.rightsJournal of Dental Research. Copyright © Sage Publications, Inc.-
dc.titleThe effect of antiseptic oral sprays on dental plaque and gingival inflammation: a systematic review and meta-analysis-
dc.typeConference_Paper-
dc.identifier.emailMcGrath, CPJ: mcgrathc@hkucc.hku.hk-
dc.identifier.emailLam, OLT: ottolam@hku.hk-
dc.identifier.authorityMcGrath, CPJ=rp00037-
dc.identifier.authorityLam, OLT=rp01567-
dc.identifier.hkuros259759-
dc.identifier.volume95-
dc.identifier.issueSpec. Iss. B-
dc.publisher.placeUnited States-

Export via OAI-PMH Interface in XML Formats


OR


Export to Other Non-XML Formats