Herzog Johannes, Karacic Jelena, Svellenti Leonardo, Sahrmann Philipp
Department of Periodontology, Endodontology and Cariology, University Center for Dental Medicine Basel UZB, University of Basel, 4058, Basel, Switzerland.
BMC Oral Health. 2025 Feb 1;25(1):178. doi: 10.1186/s12903-025-05558-6.
Different methods to simulate plaque in order to test the efficacy of oral cleaning methods have been published. This scoping review aims to provide an overview of the existing models and to highlight their respective benefits and limitations.
Following the recommended scoping review methodology the scientific literature was systematically searched electronically (PubMed and Scopus) and by hand search up to July 2024, using combinations of search items related to oral plaque simulation, periodontitis or peri-implantitis. Retrieved study titles and abstracts were screened for possible inclusion. Finally, data from included fulltexts was extracted by two independent reviewers. Nine different characteristics for proper plaque simulation method were defined and each existing method evaluated and rated accordingly, and an overall rating was calculated for each method.
Initially, 1787 records were identified. After abstract and title screening and fulltext revision, 25 fulltexts describing 7 different simulation methods, were included. The assessed methods of simulation were ink (12), varnish (5), calcium phosphate (1), calcium carbonate (1), occlusal spray (3), aluminum (1), commercially distributed and prepared artificial plaque (2). Even though some materials achieved good results in the assessment for individual criteria like water solubility, big differences could be found concerning practicability and production time, no simulation method was rated "very good" or even "good" in the overall evaluation. While ink and varnish were considered simulation materials of moderate quality for oral plaque simulation, all other techniques were assessed as weak simulation materials.
Among the different published methods for the simulation of mechanical plaque removal, none seems to sufficiently simulate the essential characteristics of oral plaque, while some simulation methods may be useful to feature single properties of plaque in in-vitro studies sufficiently. Nevertheless, advanced models reflecting the diverse features of dental plaque more comprehensively are needed.
已发表了不同的模拟牙菌斑的方法，用于测试口腔清洁方法的效果。本范围综述旨在概述现有模型，并突出它们各自的优点和局限性。
按照推荐的范围综述方法，通过电子方式（PubMed和Scopus）系统检索科学文献，并截至2024年7月进行手工检索，使用与口腔牙菌斑模拟、牙周炎或种植体周围炎相关的搜索词组合。对检索到的研究标题和摘要进行筛选，以确定是否可能纳入。最后，由两名独立评审员从纳入的全文中提取数据。定义了适用于牙菌斑模拟方法的九个不同特征，并据此对每种现有方法进行评估和评级，计算出每种方法的总体评分。
最初，识别出1787条记录。经过摘要和标题筛选以及全文修订后，纳入了25篇描述7种不同模拟方法的全文。评估的模拟方法有墨水（12种）、清漆（5种）、磷酸钙（1种）、碳酸钙（1种）、咬合喷雾（3种）、铝（1种）、商业销售和制备的人工牙菌斑（2种）。尽管有些材料在水溶性等个别标准的评估中取得了良好结果，但在实用性和生产时间方面存在很大差异，在总体评估中没有一种模拟方法被评为“非常好”甚至“好”。虽然墨水和清漆被认为是用于口腔牙菌斑模拟的中等质量模拟材料，但所有其他技术都被评估为较弱的模拟材料。
在已发表的不同机械性去除牙菌斑模拟方法中，似乎没有一种能充分模拟口腔牙菌斑的基本特征，而一些模拟方法可能有助于在体外研究中充分体现牙菌斑的单一特性。然而，需要更全面反映牙菌斑多种特征的先进模型。
