Professor, Department of Dermatology, Stomatology and Radiology, University of Murcia, Murcia, Spain.
Associate Professor, Department of Paediatric and Preventive Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, European University of Valencia, Valencia, Spain.
J Prosthet Dent. 2024 Jun;131(6):1071-1083. doi: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2023.01.031. Epub 2023 Mar 2.
Scientific evidence to determine the optimal method of cleaning and disinfecting removable prostheses is lacking.
The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness of effervescent tablets in the cleaning and sanitizing of removable prostheses compared with other chemical and physical methods by assessing the reduction of biofilm, microbial levels, and material stability.
A systematic literature search and meta-analysis was conducted in August 2021 in the MEDLINE/PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases. Randomized and nonrandomized controlled clinical trials published in English were included without publication year limits. A total of 23 studies were included in the systematic review and 6 in the meta-analysis, which had been registered in the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO) database (CRD42021274019). The Cochrane Collaboration tool was used to assess the risk of bias of randomized clinical trials. The physiotherapy evidence database (PEDro) scale was used to analyze the internal validity of clinical trials by assessing the quality of the data obtained. The studies included in the meta-analysis were combined by using a random-effects model with the inverse variance method. Publication bias was analyzed by using the Duvall and Tweedie trim-and-fill method.
With regard to biofilm reduction, the standardized mean difference estimated with the 4 studies combined in the meta-analysis was P=.012: mean difference=-1.92; 95% confidence interval=-3.45 to -0.38, indicating a "large" effect of the combination of brushing and effervescent tablet versus brushing alone. To estimate the reduction in the total bacteria levels in the 3 combined studies, a "large" effect size was obtained for the combination of brushing and using an effervescent tablet versus brushing alone, P<.001: mean difference=-4.43; 95% confidence interval=-8.29 to -0.55. Finally, when the 3 studies were combined to assess the reduction of Candida or fungal infection, a "moderate" effect size was obtained for the combination of brushing combined with the use of an effervescent tablet, P<.001: mean difference=-0.78; 95% confidence interval=-1.19 to -0.37.
The combination of brushing and the use of effervescent tablets versus brushing alone had a significantly higher effect on reducing biofilm and bacterial counts and a moderate effect on reducing Candida. Regarding color and dimensional stability, few studies were found, with the results depending on the concentration of the product and the immersion time of the device.
缺乏确定清洁和消毒可摘义齿的最佳方法的科学证据。
本系统评价和荟萃分析的目的是通过评估生物膜减少、微生物水平和材料稳定性,评估泡腾片在清洁和消毒可摘义齿方面与其他化学和物理方法相比的效果,来评估泡腾片在清洁和消毒可摘义齿方面的效果。
2021 年 8 月,在 MEDLINE/PubMed、Cochrane、Embase、Scopus 和 Web of Science 数据库中进行了系统的文献检索和荟萃分析。纳入了没有出版年限限制的英语发表的随机和非随机对照临床试验。共有 23 项研究被纳入系统评价,6 项研究被纳入荟萃分析,这些研究都已在国际前瞻性系统评价注册库(PROSPERO)数据库(CRD42021274019)中注册。使用 Cochrane 协作工具评估随机临床试验的偏倚风险。使用物理治疗证据数据库(PEDro)量表通过评估获得的数据质量来分析临床试验的内部有效性。通过使用逆方差法的随机效应模型对纳入荟萃分析的研究进行合并。通过 Duvall 和 Tweedie 修剪和填充方法分析发表偏倚。
在生物膜减少方面,纳入的 4 项研究合并进行荟萃分析后,估计的标准化均数差为 P=.012:均数差=-1.92;95%置信区间=-3.45 至-0.38,表明刷牙和泡腾片联合使用的效果“大”。为了估计 3 项合并研究中总细菌水平的减少,刷牙和使用泡腾片联合使用的组合获得了“大”的效果大小,与单独刷牙相比,P<.001:均数差=-4.43;95%置信区间=-8.29 至-0.55。最后,当合并 3 项研究评估减少念珠菌或真菌感染时,刷牙和使用泡腾片联合使用的组合获得了“中等”效果大小,P<.001:均数差=-0.78;95%置信区间=-1.19 至-0.37。
与单独刷牙相比,刷牙和使用泡腾片联合使用在减少生物膜和细菌计数方面有显著更高的效果,在减少念珠菌方面有中等效果。关于颜色和尺寸稳定性,发现的研究很少,结果取决于产品的浓度和器械的浸泡时间。