Efficacy of homecare regimens for mechanical plaque removal in managing gingivitis a meta review

Abstract

Efficacy of homecare regimens for mechanical plaque removal in managing gingivitis a meta review Van Material & Methods: Three Internet sources were used (up to and including August 2014) to search for appropriate papers that satisfied the study purpose. Plaque scores and gingivitis scores were considered to be the primary parameter of interest. Safety was considered an important facet in relation to efficacy. Data and conclusions as presented in the selected papers were extracted. The potential risk of bias was estimated and the emerging evidence was graded. Results: Independent screening of 176 unique reviews resulted in 10 published and eligible systematic reviews. They were categorized into one review evaluating the effect of an oral hygiene instruction with a toothbrush on plaque and gingivitis scores, five evaluating the efficacy of manual and power toothbrushes and three reviews evaluating toothbrush safety and one evaluating toothbrush contamination. Conclusion: Tooth brushing is effective in reducing levels of dental plaque. With respect to gingivitis power toothbrushes have a benefit over manual toothbrushes. The greatest body of evidence was available for oscillating-rotating brushes. Tooth brushing generally can be considered safe for the teeth and their investing tissues.

Validity of a New Kit Measuring Salivary Lactate Dehydrogenase Level for Screening Gingivitis

“…Since gingivitis is reversible and can be managed by appropriate plaque control [18], early detection of gingivitis can prevent the progression of periodontal disease (gingivitis to periodontitis). Gingivitis is a “silent disease” and many people, including university students, cannot accurately detect their deteriorating periodontal condition [19].…”

Can Chemical Mouthwash Agents Achieve Plaque/Gingivitis Control?

“…20 The estimated risk of bias was interpreted as follows: 0% to 40% may represent a high risk of bias, 40% to 60% may represent a substantial risk of bias, 60% to Van der Weijden et al 80% may represent a moderate risk of bias, and 80%-100% may represent a low risk of bias. 3 Grading the 'Body of Evidence'…”

“…1 Studies of tooth cleaning suggest that despite technological innovations, the level of mechanical oral hygiene practice is inadequate. [2][3][4] The principle that plaque biofilm is the major etiologic factor causing gingivitis provides the justification for the use of antimicrobial mouth rinses. 5 The practice of mouth rinsing has been in use by humans for more than 2000 years.…”

“…11 Recently, 2 meta-reviews have been published that evaluate the efficacy of home-care regimens for mechanical plaque removal (toothbrushes and interdental cleaning devices) on plaque and gingivitis in adults. 2,3 The purpose of this article was to prepare a meta-review that summarizes the contemporary synthesized evidence with respect to the efficacy and safety of home-care self-support activities focusing on chemical agents in mouthwashes to manage plaque and gingivitis.…”

Effect of mouthwashes on the composition and metabolic activity of oral biofilms grown in vitro

“…Mechanical disruption of dental plaque biofilms such as toothbrushing is worldwide the most common approach. The effectiveness of this is however limited [2, 3]. Therefore, also chemotherapeutic strategies to disrupt these biofilms have been considered, such as the use of mouthwashes.…”