Richards Derek
Centre for Evidence-based Dentistry, Oxford, UK.
Evid Based Dent. 2012;13(3):91. doi: 10.1038/sj.ebd.6400882.
The BBO (Bibliografia Brasileira de Odontologia), Biomed Central, Cochrane Library, Directory of Open Access Journals, LILACS, Open-J-Gate, OpenSIGLE, PubMed, Sabinet and Science-Direct databases were searched.
Articles were selected for review from the search results on the basis of their compliance with the broad inclusion criteria: relevant to the review question; and prospective two-arm (or more) clinical study. The primary outcome measure was the incidence of AO reported at the patient level.
Two reviewers (VY and SM) independently extracted data and assessed the quality of the accepted articles. Individual dichotomous datasets for the control and test group were extracted from each article. Where possible, missing data were calculated from information given in the text or tables. In addition, authors were contacted in order to obtain missing information. Datasets were assessed for their clinical and methodological heterogeneity following Cochrane guidelines. Meta-analysis was conducted with homogeneous datasets. Publication bias was assessed by use of a funnel plot and Egger's regression.
Ten randomised trials were included; almost all involved the removal of third molars. Only two of six identified application protocols (single application of chlorhexidine 0.2% gel or multiple application of 0.12% rinse versus placebo) were found to significantly decrease the incidence of AO.
Within the limitations of this review, only two of six identified application protocols were found to significantly decrease the incidence of AO. The evidence for both protocols is weak and may be challenged on the grounds of high risk of selection, detection/performance and attrition bias. This systematic review could not identify sufficient evidence supporting the use of chlorhexidine for the prevention of AO. Chlorhexidine seems not to cause any significantly higher adverse reactions than placebo. Future high-quality randomised control trials are needed to provide conclusive evidence on this topic.
检索了巴西牙科学文献数据库(BBO)、生物医学中心、考克兰图书馆、开放获取期刊目录、拉丁美洲和加勒比卫生科学数据库(LILACS)、Open-J-Gate、OpenSIGLE、PubMed、Sabinet和科学Direct数据库。
根据广泛的纳入标准从检索结果中选择文章进行综述:与综述问题相关;前瞻性双臂(或更多)临床研究。主要结局指标是患者层面报告的牙槽骨炎(AO)发生率。
两名评审员(VY和SM)独立提取数据并评估纳入文章的质量。从每篇文章中提取对照组和试验组的个体二分数据集。尽可能根据文本或表格中给出的信息计算缺失数据。此外,与作者联系以获取缺失信息。根据考克兰指南评估数据集的临床和方法学异质性。对同质数据集进行荟萃分析。通过漏斗图和埃格回归评估发表偏倚。
纳入了10项随机试验;几乎所有试验都涉及第三磨牙拔除。在确定的6种应用方案中(0.2%氯己定凝胶单次应用或0.12%含漱液多次应用与安慰剂相比),仅发现2种方案能显著降低牙槽骨炎的发生率。
在本综述的局限性内,在确定的6种应用方案中仅发现2种能显著降低牙槽骨炎的发生率。这两种方案的证据都很薄弱,可能因选择、检测/实施和失访偏倚风险高而受到质疑。本系统综述未能找到足够证据支持使用氯己定预防牙槽骨炎。氯己定似乎不会引起比安慰剂显著更高的不良反应。需要未来高质量的随机对照试验来提供关于该主题的确凿证据。