Gbinigie Oghenekome, Onakpoya Igho, Spencer Elizabeth, McCall MacBain Marcy, Heneghan Carl
University of Oxford, Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, New Radcliffe House, Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Oxford OX2 6GG, United Kingdom.
Complement Ther Med. 2016 Jun;26:47-54. doi: 10.1016/j.ctim.2016.02.011. Epub 2016 Feb 20.
To critically appraise and evaluate the evidence from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) examining the effectiveness of oil pulling on oro dental hygiene.
We conducted electronic searches in Medline, Embase, Amed, The Cochrane Library and Cinahl databases from inception to February 2015, and assessed reporting quality using the Cochrane risk of bias criteria. We included RCTs that compared oil pulling using conventional cooking oils with a control intervention. Our primary outcomes were measures of oro dental hygiene using validated scales.
Electronic searches yielded 26 eligible studies, of which five RCTs comprising a total of 160 participants were included. The studies varied in reporting quality, lasted between 10 and 45 days, and compared oil pulling with chlorhexidine, placebo or routine dental hygiene practice. Three studies reported no significant differences in post intervention plaque index scores between oil pulling and control groups (Chlorhexidine mouthwash +/- Placebo): p=0.28, 0.94, and 0.38, respectively. Two studies reported no significant difference in post-intervention modified gingival index score between oil pulling and Chlorhexidine mouthwash groups (p=0.32 and 0.64).
The limited evidence to date from clinical trials suggests that oil pulling may have beneficial effects on oro dental hygiene as seen for the short period of time investigated. Given that this is a potentially cost-effective intervention, this practice might be of particular benefit. Future clinical trials should be more rigorous and better reported.
严格评估和评价随机临床试验(RCT)中关于油拔法对口腔卫生有效性的证据。
我们对Medline、Embase、Amed、Cochrane图书馆和Cinahl数据库进行了从建库至2015年2月的电子检索,并使用Cochrane偏倚风险标准评估报告质量。我们纳入了比较使用传统食用油进行油拔法与对照干预的随机对照试验。我们的主要结局是使用经过验证的量表对口腔卫生进行测量。
电子检索产生了26项符合条件的研究,其中包括5项随机对照试验,共有160名参与者。这些研究的报告质量各不相同,持续时间为10至45天,并将油拔法与洗必泰、安慰剂或常规口腔卫生措施进行了比较。三项研究报告称,油拔法组与对照组(洗必泰漱口水+/-安慰剂)干预后菌斑指数得分无显著差异:p值分别为0.28、0.94和0.38。两项研究报告称,油拔法组与洗必泰漱口水组干预后改良牙龈指数得分无显著差异(p值分别为0.32和0.64)。
迄今为止,临床试验的有限证据表明,在所研究的短时间内,油拔法可能对口腔卫生有有益影响。鉴于这是一种潜在的具有成本效益的干预措施,这种做法可能特别有益。未来的临床试验应该更加严格,并更好地报告。