Grender Julie, Adam Ralf, Zou Yuanshu
The Procter & Gamble Company, Mason, Ohio, USA,
German Innovation Center, Kronberg, Germany.
Am J Dent. 2020 Feb;33(1):3-11.
To compare the effects of oscillating-rotating (O-R), sonic (side-to-side), and manual toothbrushes on plaque and gingival health after multiple uses in studies up to 3 months.
A meta-analysis was conducted on randomized clinical trials (RCTs) up to 3 months in duration to evaluate O-R electric toothbrush effectiveness regarding gingivitis reduction and plaque removal versus sonic and/or manual toothbrushes. To ensure access to subject-level data, this meta-analysis was limited to RCTs involving O-R toothbrushes from a single manufacturer conducted from 2007 to 2017 for which subject-level data were available and that satisfied criteria of duration, parallel design, examiner-graded, etc. For gingivitis studies, a one-step individual subject meta-analysis was used to assess direct and indirect treatment differences and to identify any subject-level covariates modifying treatment effects. In the two-step meta-analysis, individual participant data were first analyzed in each study independently using the last timepoint (up to 3 months), producing aggregate data for each study. Then forest plots were produced using these aggregate data with random-effects models. For plaque studies, the efficacy variables were standardized so direct comparisons could be generated using the 2-step meta-analysis. Network meta-analysis was performed to assess the indirect plaque comparisons.
16 parallel group RCTs with 2,145 subjects were identified assessing gingivitis via number of bleeding sites. In five and 11 gingivitis studies assessing O-R brushes versus manual and sonic brushes, respectively, a change in the average number of bleeding sites of -8.9 ( 95% CI: -15.9, -1.9) and -3.1 (95% CI: -3.8, -2.4) was observed (P ≤ 0.008). These reductions equate to a 50% and 28% bleeding benefit for O-R technology versus the respective controls. The sonic brush bleeding change versus manual was -5.9 (P = 0.062), a 34% bleeding benefit. Utilizing individual bleeding scores, subjects with localized or generalized gingivitis (≥ 10% bleeding sites) had 7.4 times better odds of transitioning to generally healthy (< 10% bleeding sites) after using an O-R brush versus manual. 20 parallel design RCTs with 2,551 subjects assessed plaque (TMQHI, RMNPI). In eight and 12 plaque RCTs assessing an O-R brush versus manual and sonic brushes, respectively, standardized changes in average plaque scores of -1.51 (95% CI: -2.17, -0.85) and -0.55 (95% CI: -0.82, -0.28) were observed (P< 0.001). These plaque reductions by O-R equate to a relative 20% and 4% greater benefit, respectively. The change for sonic versus manual was -0.93 ( 95% CI:-1.48, -0.38); (P < 0.001) which equates to a 12% plaque benefit.
This subject-level meta-analysis of studies up to 3 months provides sound evidence supporting recommendations for patients with various degrees of gingival bleeding to use oscillating-rotating electric toothbrushes over manual and sonic toothbrushes to improve plaque control and gingival health.
比较旋转振荡式(O-R)、声波式(左右摆动)和手动牙刷在长达3个月的多次使用后对牙菌斑和牙龈健康的影响。
对持续时间长达3个月的随机临床试验(RCT)进行荟萃分析,以评估O-R电动牙刷在减少牙龈炎和清除牙菌斑方面相对于声波式和/或手动牙刷的有效性。为确保能够获取个体受试者层面的数据,本荟萃分析仅限于2007年至2017年进行的、涉及单一制造商生产的O-R牙刷、可获取个体受试者层面数据且符合持续时间、平行设计、检查者分级等标准的RCT。对于牙龈炎研究,采用单步个体受试者荟萃分析来评估直接和间接治疗差异,并识别任何可改变治疗效果的个体受试者层面的协变量。在两步荟萃分析中,首先在每项研究中独立使用最后一个时间点(长达3个月)对个体参与者数据进行分析,生成每项研究的汇总数据。然后使用这些汇总数据和随机效应模型绘制森林图。对于牙菌斑研究,对疗效变量进行标准化,以便使用两步荟萃分析进行直接比较。进行网状荟萃分析以评估牙菌斑的间接比较。
共识别出16项平行组RCT,涉及2145名受试者,通过出血部位数量评估牙龈炎。在分别评估O-R牙刷与手动牙刷和声波牙刷的5项和11项牙龈炎研究中,观察到平均出血部位数量的变化分别为-8.9(95%CI:-15.9,-1.9)和-3.1(95%CI:-3.8,-2.4)(P≤0.008)。与各自的对照组相比,这些减少相当于O-R技术在出血方面有50%和28%的益处。声波牙刷与手动牙刷相比出血变化为-5.9(P = 0.062),在出血方面有34%的益处。利用个体出血评分,局部或广泛性牙龈炎(≥10%出血部位)的受试者在使用O-R牙刷后转变为一般健康状态(<10%出血部位)的几率比使用手动牙刷高7.4倍。20项平行设计的RCT,涉及2551名受试者,评估牙菌斑(TMQHI,RMNPI)。在分别评估O-R牙刷与手动牙刷和声波牙刷的8项和12项牙菌斑RCT中,观察到平均牙菌斑评分的标准化变化分别为-1.51(95%CI:-2.17,-0.85)和-0.55(95%CI:-0.82,-0.28)(P<0.001)。O-R牙刷在牙菌斑减少方面分别相当于相对多20%和4%的益处。声波牙刷与手动牙刷相比的变化为-0.93(95%CI:-1.48,-0.38);(P<0.001),这相当于在牙菌斑方面有12%的益处。
这项对长达3个月的研究进行的个体受试者层面的荟萃分析提供了有力证据,支持为不同程度牙龈出血的患者推荐使用旋转振荡式电动牙刷而非手动和声波牙刷,以改善牙菌斑控制和牙龈健康。