Department of Periodontology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Periodontol 2000. 2019 Feb;79(1):221-232. doi: 10.1111/prd.12257.
This paper focuses on plaque control and the management of gingivitis in adults and summarizes the evidence of commercially available dentifrices as gathered from existing systematic reviews. Three internet sources were used to search for appropriate papers (up to and including February 2017). The search strategy was designed to include any systematic review published on dentifrices that also included an evaluation of plaque and gingivitis scores. Characteristics of the individual reviews, such as methodological aspects, quantitative data and conclusions, were extracted. The potential risk of bias was estimated and the acquired evidence was graded. Independent screening of 205 unique reviews resulted in 10 published and eligible systematic reviews. One publication evaluated the mechanical contribution of dentifrice to plaque removal. Eight papers were identified that evaluated the efficacy of a proposed single active ingredients, of which two reviewed more than one potentially active ingredient. One study compared two active ingredients. This meta-review appraised the current state of evidence and found that toothbrushing with a standard fluoride dentifrice does not provide an added effect for the mechanical removal of dental plaque. Evidence suggests that compared with a standard dentifrice, those containing triclosan or stannous fluoride have benefits with respect to gingival health and control of dental plaque.
本文重点关注菌斑控制和成人牙龈炎的管理,并总结了从现有的系统性评价中收集到的市售牙膏的证据。使用了三个互联网资源来搜索相关文献(截至 2017 年 2 月)。该检索策略旨在包括对评估菌斑和牙龈炎评分的牙膏进行的任何系统性评价。提取了各个综述的特征,如方法学方面、定量数据和结论。评估了潜在的偏倚风险,并对获得的证据进行了分级。对 205 篇独特的综述进行独立筛选,得到了 10 篇已发表且符合条件的系统性综述。有一篇文献评估了牙膏在去除菌斑方面的机械作用。确定了 8 篇评估特定单一活性成分功效的论文,其中有两篇综述评估了两种可能具有活性的成分。一项研究比较了两种活性成分。本次荟萃评价评估了当前的证据状况,发现使用含氟标准牙膏刷牙并不能增强机械去除牙菌斑的效果。有证据表明,与标准牙膏相比,含三氯生或氟化亚锡的牙膏在牙龈健康和控制牙菌斑方面具有优势。