Patel Rajiv M, Malaki Zainab
Periodontology Department of Periodontology, Kings College London, Dental Institute at Guy's, Hospital, London SE1 9RT.
Evid Based Dent. 2008;9(1):18-9. doi: 10.1038/sj.ebd.6400566.
PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched up to December 2006 were searched. Only studies published in English were included.
Randomised controlled clinical trials, controlled clinical trials and uncontrolled longitudinal clinical trials were included in the initial search. Studies with a minimum duration of 6 months, healthy subjects >/=18 and gingivitis without severe periodontal disease were included. The effects of plaque and gingivitis were considered the primary outcomes with staining of teeth a secondary outcome.
Studies were screened and data extracted independently by two reviewers. It is unclear whether or not this process was duplicated. Disagreements were resolved by discussion. Heterogeneity of the studies was assessed. Data was pooled for gingivitis and plaque and a weighted means meta-analysis using a random effects model was carried out.
Eleven studies (all randomised controlled trials) met the inclusion criteria. All were of six months duration except one of nine months. There was no meta-analysis between baseline and end trial as the standard deviation could not be calculated. Three studies were not included in the meta-analysis. Meta-analysis of staining was not carried out. There was significant reduction in gingivitis with EO mouthrinses compared to control groups regardless of the measurement index used (Weighted Means Difference (WMD) -0.32 95% Confidence Interval (CI) [-0.46 to -0.19], P< 0.00001; test for heterogeneity: P<0.00001 I(2) =96.7%). A significant reduction in interproximal gingivitis was also noted for EO mouthrinses compared to control (WMD -0.29 95% CI [-0.48 to -0.11] P=0.002; test for heterogeneity: p<0.0001 I(2)=95.8%) and compared to floss (WMD -0.05 95% CI [-0.20 to -0.09] P=0.48; test for heterogeneity: P=0.0001 I(2)=99.7%). Similar results were seen for the effects on plaque with a decrease in total plaque in favour of EO mouthrinse (WMD -0.83 95% CI [-1.13 to -.053] P<0.00001; test for heterogeneity: P<0.00001 I(2)= 96.1%). Significant interproximal plaque reduction, again in favour of EO mouthrinse, was also seen compared to control (WMD -1.02 [-1.44 to -0.60] P<0.00001; test for heterogeneity: P<0.00001 I(2)=96.1% 95% CI) and compared to floss (WMD -0.75 95% CI [-1.15 to -0.363] P<0.0002; test for heterogeneity: P<0.0002 I(2)= 93%).
When used as an adjunct to unsupervised oral hygiene, the existing evidence supports that essential oil provides an additional benefit with regard to plaque and gingivitis reduction compared to placebo or control.
检索了截至2006年12月的PubMed和Cochrane对照试验中央注册库。仅纳入以英文发表的研究。
初步检索纳入随机对照临床试验、对照临床试验和非对照纵向临床试验。纳入的研究最短持续时间为6个月,健康受试者年龄≥18岁且患有无严重牙周病的牙龈炎。菌斑和牙龈炎的影响被视为主要结局,牙齿染色为次要结局。
由两名审阅者独立筛选研究并提取数据。尚不清楚此过程是否重复进行。分歧通过讨论解决。评估研究的异质性。汇总牙龈炎和菌斑的数据,并使用随机效应模型进行加权均值荟萃分析。
11项研究(均为随机对照试验)符合纳入标准。除一项为期9个月的研究外,其余均为期6个月。由于无法计算标准差,未对基线和试验结束时进行荟萃分析。3项研究未纳入荟萃分析。未进行牙齿染色的荟萃分析。与对照组相比,无论使用何种测量指标,使用含精油漱口水后牙龈炎均显著减轻(加权均值差(WMD)-0.32,95%置信区间(CI)[-0.46至-0.19],P<0.00001;异质性检验:P<0.00001,I(2)=96.7%)。与对照组相比,含精油漱口水在邻间龈炎方面也显著减轻(WMD -0.29,95%CI [-0.48至-0.11],P=0.002;异质性检验:p<0.0001,I(2)=95.8%),与牙线相比(WMD -0.05,95%CI [-0.20至-0.09],P=0.48;异质性检验:P=0.0001,I(2)=99.7%)。含精油漱口水对菌斑的影响也有类似结果,总菌斑减少,有利于含精油漱口水(WMD -0.83,95%CI [-1.13至-0.53],P<0.00001;异质性检验:P<0.00001,I(2)=96.1%)。与对照组相比,邻间菌斑也显著减少,同样有利于含精油漱口水(WMD -1.02 [-1.44至-0.60],P<0.00001;异质性检验:P<0.00001,I(2)=96.1%,95%CI),与牙线相比(WMD -0.75,95%CI [-1.15至-0.363],P<0.0002;异质性检验:P<0.0002,I(2)=93%)。
当作为无监督口腔卫生措施的辅助手段使用时,现有证据支持与安慰剂或对照组相比,精油在减少菌斑和牙龈炎方面具有额外益处。