Suppr超能文献

电动牙刷相对于手动牙刷的效果如何?单次刷牙的系统评价和荟萃分析。

How effective is a powered toothbrush as compared to a manual toothbrush? A systematic review and meta-analysis of single brushing exercises.

机构信息

Department of Periodontology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.

出版信息

Int J Dent Hyg. 2020 Feb;18(1):17-26. doi: 10.1111/idh.12401. Epub 2019 Jul 23.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

In adult participants, what is, following a single brushing exercise, the efficacy of a powered toothbrush (PTB) as compared to a manual toothbrush (MTB) on plaque removal?

METHODS

MEDLINE-PubMed and Cochrane-CENTRAL were searched from inception to February 2019. The inclusion criteria were (randomized) controlled clinical trials conducted in human subjects ≥18 years of age, in good general health and without periodontitis, orthodontic treatment, implants and/or removable prosthesis. Papers evaluating a PTB compared with a MTB in a single brushing exercise were included. When plaque scores were assessed according to the Quigley-Hein plaque index (Q&HPI) or the Rustogi modified Navy plaque index (RMNPI). From the eligible studies, data were extracted. A meta-analysis and subanalysis for brands and mode of action being oscillating-rotating (OR) and side-to-side (SS) were performed when feasible.

RESULTS

Independent screening of 3450 unique papers resulted in 17 eligible publications presenting 36 comparisons. In total, 28 comparisons assessed toothbrushing efficacy according to the Q&HPI and eight comparisons used the RMNPI. Results showed a significant effect in favour of the PTB. The difference of Means (DiffM) was -0.14 (P < 0.001; 95%CI [-0.19; -0.09]) for the Q&HPI and -0.10 (P < 0.001; 95%CI [-0.14; -0.06]) for the RMNPI, respectively. The subanalysis on the OR mode of action showed a DiffM -0.16 (P < 0.001; 95%CI [-0.22, -0.10]) for the Q&HPI. For the SS mode of action using RMNPI, the DiffM showed -0.10 (P < 0.001; 95%CI [-0.15; -0.05]). The subanalysis for brands showed for the P&G OR PTB using the Q&HPI a DiffM of -0.15 (P < 0.001; 95%CI [-0.22; -0.08]) and the Colgate SS for RMNPI showed a DiffM of -0.15 (P < 0.001; 95%CI [-0.18; -0.12]).

CONCLUSION

There is moderate certainty that the PTB was more effective than the MTB with respect to plaque removal following a single brushing exercise independent of the plaque index scale that was used.

摘要

目的

在成年参与者中,单次刷牙后,与手动牙刷(MTB)相比,电动牙刷(PTB)在去除牙菌斑方面的效果如何?

方法

从建库到 2019 年 2 月,我们在 MEDLINE-PubMed 和 Cochrane-CENTRAL 上进行了检索。纳入标准为:在≥18 岁的健康成年人中进行的(随机)对照临床试验,且无牙周炎、正畸治疗、种植体和/或可摘义齿。纳入了评估 PTB 与 MTB 在单次刷牙时效果的研究。当使用 Quigley-Hein 菌斑指数(Q&HPI)或 Rustogi 改良海军菌斑指数(RMNPI)评估菌斑评分时。从合格的研究中提取数据。当可行时,对品牌和作用模式(振荡-旋转(OR)和左右(SS))进行荟萃分析和亚分析。

结果

对 3450 篇独特论文进行独立筛选后,有 17 篇符合条件的文献纳入了 36 项比较。共有 28 项比较根据 Q&HPI 评估了刷牙效果,8 项比较使用了 RMNPI。结果显示,PTB 有显著的优势。Q&HPI 的差异均值(DiffM)为-0.14(P<0.001;95%CI [-0.19;-0.09]),RMNPI 的 DiffM 为-0.10(P<0.001;95%CI [-0.14;-0.06])。对 OR 作用模式的亚分析显示,Q&HPI 的 DiffM 为-0.16(P<0.001;95%CI [-0.22,-0.10])。对于 SS 作用模式,使用 RMNPI 的 DiffM 为-0.10(P<0.001;95%CI [-0.15;-0.05])。品牌亚分析显示,使用 Q&HPI 的 P&G OR PTB 的 DiffM 为-0.15(P<0.001;95%CI [-0.22;-0.08]),而 Colgate SS 的 DiffM 为 RMNPI 为-0.15(P<0.001;95%CI [-0.18;-0.12])。

结论

有中等确定性证据表明,与手动牙刷相比,在单次刷牙后,PTB 在去除牙菌斑方面更有效,而与使用的菌斑指数无关。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/afcb/7004084/d5bbddb0cf76/IDH-18-17-g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验