SYSTEM Initiative/Department of Community Dentistry, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa.
Int J Oral Maxillofac Surg. 2012 Oct;41(10):1253-64. doi: 10.1016/j.ijom.2012.04.017. Epub 2012 May 22.
This systematic review assessed the efficacy of chlorhexidine for the prevention of alveolar osteitis and occurrence of adverse reactions. Databases were searched until 20 April 2011. Trial inclusion criteria were: titles/abstracts relevant to topic; prospective 2-arm (or more) clinical study design. Trial exclusion criteria were: not all entered subjects accounted for; subjects of both groups not followed up the same way; lack of computable data; chlorhexidine not the primary test agent; duplication of data; outcome of interest other than incidence of alveolar osteitis. Individual datasets were extracted from accepted articles. Bias risk in trials was assessed. 10 of 13 included trials were accepted. From these, 16 dichotomous datasets were extracted. Two of six application protocols favoured chlorhexidine over placebo: Single application of 0.2% chlorhexidine gel placed in the socket immediately after extraction versus placebo gel (RR 0.40; 95% CI: 0.18-0.90; p=0.03) and 0.12% chlorhexidine rinse applied on day of surgery and used twice daily for 7 days postoperatively versus placebo rinse (RR 0.50; 95% CI: 0.27-0.93; p=0.03). These results are negated due to high bias risk. Chlorhexidine did not cause higher adverse reactions than placebo. Further high-quality randomised control trials are needed.
这篇系统评价评估了洗必泰预防牙槽骨炎和不良反应发生的效果。检索数据库截至 2011 年 4 月 20 日。试验纳入标准为:标题/摘要与主题相关;前瞻性 2 臂(或更多)临床研究设计。试验排除标准为:并非所有纳入的受试者都被记录;两组受试者未以相同的方式随访;缺乏可计算的数据;洗必泰不是主要的试验药物;数据重复;关注的结果不是牙槽骨炎的发生率。从接受的文章中提取出个体数据集。评估了试验中的偏倚风险。13 项纳入的试验中有 10 项被接受。从这些试验中,提取了 16 个二项数据集。6 个应用方案中的 2 个倾向于洗必泰优于安慰剂:拔牙后立即在拔牙窝中放置 0.2%洗必泰凝胶一次与安慰剂凝胶(RR 0.40;95%CI:0.18-0.90;p=0.03)和 0.12%洗必泰冲洗液在手术当天使用,术后每天使用两次,共 7 天与安慰剂冲洗液(RR 0.50;95%CI:0.27-0.93;p=0.03)。由于高偏倚风险,这些结果被否定。洗必泰不会比安慰剂引起更高的不良反应。需要进一步的高质量随机对照试验。