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]

Scaling and root planing are widely considered as effective methods for treating chronic periodontitis. A meta-analysis published in 2008 showed no statistically significant differences between full-mouth disinfection ( FMD) or full-mouth scaling and root planing ( FMS) and quadrant scaling and root planing (Q- SRP). The FMD approach only resulted in modest additional improvements in several indices. Whether differences exist between these two approaches requires further validation. Accordingly, a study was conducted to further validate whether FMD with antiseptics or FMS without the use of antiseptics within 24 h provides greater clinical improvement than Q- SRP in patients with chronic periodontitis. Medline (via OVID), EMBASE (via OVID), PubMed and CENTRAL databases were searched up to 27 January 2015. Randomized controlled trials comparing FMD or FMS with Q- SRP after at least 3 mo were included. Meta-analysis was performed to obtain the weighted mean difference ( WMD), together with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals. Thirteen articles were included in the meta-analysis. The WMD of probing pocket depth reduction was 0.25 mm ( p < 0.05) for FMD vs. Q- SRP in single-rooted teeth with moderate pockets, and clinical attachment level gain in single- and multirooted teeth with moderate pockets was 0.33 mm ( p < 0.05) for FMD vs. Q- SRP. Except for those, no statistically significant differences were found in the other subanalyses of FMD vs. Q- SRP, FMS vs. Q- SRP and FMD vs. FMS. Therefore, the meta-analysis results showed that FMD was better than Q- SRP for achieving probing pocket depth reduction and clinical attachment level gain in moderate pockets. Additionally, regardless of the treatment, no serious complications were observed. FMD, FMS and Q- SRP are all effective for the treatment of adult chronic periodontitis, and they do not lead to any obvious discomfort among patients. Moreover, FMD had modest additional clinical benefits over Q- SRP, so we prefer to recommend FMD as the first choice for the treatment of adult chronic periodontitis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]