Zürcher Christine, Vukoje Kristian, Kleiner Eva Maria, Kuster Sophie Martina, Jäger-Larcher Lisa Katharina, Heller Ingrid, Eick Sigrun, Nagl Markus, Kapferer-Seebacher Ines
University Hospital for Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, 6020, Austria.
University Hospital for Dental Prosthetics, Medical University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Clin Oral Investig. 2025 Jan 9;29(1):53. doi: 10.1007/s00784-024-06134-y.
To compare the plaque reducing efficacy of oil pulling with sesame oil compared to distilled water in a randomized, controlled, examiner-blinded parallel group study.
Forty probands without advanced periodontal disease of the University Hospital for Restorative Dentistry and Periodontology, Medical University of Innsbruck (Austria) were randomized allocated to test- (sesame oil) or control group (distilled water) and asked to pull daily in the morning for eight weeks with their allotted fluid for 15 min. Rustogi Modified Navy Plaque Index (RMNPI) and gingival bleeding index were assessed at baseline and after four and eight weeks. Plaque samples underwent microbiological analysis.
Pulling with sesame oil was significantly more effective in reducing full mouth RMNPI compared to distilled water after eight weeks (median reduction 18.98% versus 10.49%; p = 0.023), and was most pronounced in anterior, buccal, and lingual subscales. On approximal surfaces, significantly higher plaque reduction was found in the test group after four (24.07% versus 14.29%) and eight weeks (16.00% versus 5.36%) of intervention (p < 0.05). No significant changes in gingival index and mirobiological analysis could be detected.
Plaque reduction was statistically significantly higher with oil pulling than with distilled water, however, a study bias cannot be ruled out. Further high-quality trials are needed to understand the mechanisms and effectiveness of oil pulling, to finally clarify the evidence.
Oil pulling may be recommended as an adjuvant to mechanical dental cleaning. Individuals with keratosis may experience adverse effects.
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06327841.
在一项随机、对照、检查者盲法平行组研究中,比较芝麻油拉牙与蒸馏水拉牙在减少牙菌斑方面的效果。
奥地利因斯布鲁克医科大学修复牙科与牙周病大学医院的40名无晚期牙周疾病的受试者被随机分配至试验组(芝麻油)或对照组(蒸馏水),并被要求每天早晨用分配的液体进行15分钟的拉牙,持续8周。在基线、4周和8周后评估Rustogi改良海军牙菌斑指数(RMNPI)和牙龈出血指数。对牙菌斑样本进行微生物分析。
8周后,与蒸馏水相比,用芝麻油拉牙在降低全口RMNPI方面显著更有效(中位数降低18.98%对10.49%;p = 0.023),在前牙、颊侧和舌侧亚量表中最为明显。在邻面,干预4周(24.07%对14.29%)和8周(16.00%对5.36%)后,试验组的牙菌斑减少显著更高(p < 0.05)。未检测到牙龈指数和微生物分析有显著变化。
拉牙在减少牙菌斑方面在统计学上显著高于蒸馏水,但不能排除研究偏差。需要进一步的高质量试验来了解拉牙的机制和有效性,以最终澄清证据。
拉牙可作为机械牙齿清洁的辅助方法推荐。患有角化病的个体可能会出现不良反应。
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT06327841。