Search

Aim The aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the efficacy of anti-plaque chemical formulations for managing gingivitis, in 6-month, home-use, randomised clinical trials ( RCTs). Material and Methods A protocol was designed, including inclusion and exclusion criteria to identify RCTs assessing gingival and/or bleeding indices. Electronic and hand-searches identified relevant papers, which were screened and evaluated for inclusion. Full-papers were retrieved and relevant information was extracted (also plaque indices), including quality and risk of bias. Mean treatment effects were calculated to obtain weighted mean differences ( WMD) and 95% confidence intervals. Results After the process of screening and selection, 87 articles with 133 comparisons, were included in the review. The additional effects of the tested products were statistically significant in terms of Löe & Silness gingival index (46 comparisons, WMD −0.217), modified gingival index ( n = 23, −0.415), gingivitis severity index ( n = 26, −14.939%) or bleeding index ( n = 23, −7.626%), with significant heterogeneity. For plaque, additional effects were found for Turesky (66 studies, WMD −0.475), Silness & Löe ( n = 26, −0.109), and plaque severity ( n = 12, −23.4%) indices, with significant heterogeneity. Conclusion Within the limitations of the present study, formulations with specific agents for chemical plaque control provide statistically significant improvements in terms of gingival, bleeding and plaque indices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: To answer the following PICO question: In systemically healthy humans with peri‐implant mucositis, what is the efficacy of patient‐performed or administered (by prescription) measures used adjunctively to submarginal instrumentation, as compared to submarginal instrumentation alone or combined with a negative control, in terms of reducing bleeding on probing (BOP), in randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) with at least 3 months of follow‐up? Materials and Methods: Three databases were searched until April 2022. Weighted mean differences (WMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and predictive intervals were calculated. Results: Sixteen parallel RCTs corresponding to 14 studies with low/moderate risk of bias were included. Test groups showed greater reductions in BOP (%) than control groups (nstudies = 16; npatients = 650; WMD = 14.25%; 95% CI [9.06–19.45]; p <.001; I2 = 98.7%). The greatest WMD in BOP reductions (%) were obtained by antiseptics (ns = 5; np = 229; WMD = 22.72%; 95% CI [19.40–26.04]; p < 0.001; I2 = 94.8%), followed by probiotics (ns = 6; np = 260; WMD = 12.11%; 95% CI [3.20–21.03]; p =.008; I2 = 93.3%) and systemic antibiotics (ns = 3; np = 101; WMD = 5.97%; 95% CI [1.34–10.59]; p =.012; I2 = 58.1%). Disease resolution was scarcely reported (n = 6). Conclusions: Significant clinical improvements can be obtained when professional submarginal instrumentation is combined with patient‐performed or administered (by prescription) adjunctive measures, although a complete disease resolution may not be achieved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]