Liu Yinli, Valkenburg Cees, Jonkman Ronald Edwin Gaston, Slot Dagmar Else
Angle Orthod. 2025 Apr 18;95(5):550-62. doi: 10.2319/071824-573.1.
To analyze, appraise, and synthesize papers in which authors have compared the effects of chemotherapeutic toothpaste (CTP) and regular toothpaste (RTP) on plaque scores (PSs), gingival scores (GSs), and bleeding scores (BSs) in orthodontic patients wearing fixed appliances (FAs).
PubMed-MEDLINE, Cochrane-CENTRAL, and Embase databases were searched with predefined search terms until April 2024 for controlled or randomized controlled clinical trials aligning with the aim. In the eligible papers, risk of bias was evaluated, data of interest were extracted, and a descriptive analysis was performed. If possible, meta-analyses and subanalyses on specific factors were conducted. The quality of evidence and strength of the recommendation were rated.
In our search and selection, we obtained five papers describing eight comparisons. Potential risk of bias was assessed as some concerns to high, and heterogeneity was considered substantial. Descriptive analysis revealed no significant difference in PS and BS, with an improvement in GS favoring CTP. Meta-analyses of the end scores showed CTP significantly reduced PS (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.26; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -0.52, -0.01; P = .04). However, no significant effects were observed on GS and BS. These findings were supported by the subanalyses on CTP with chlorhexidine (CHX; PS: mean difference [MD] = -5.12; 95% CI = -10.08, -0.15; P = .04). The quality of evidence was graded as very low, and strength of the recommendation was judged as very weak.
For orthodontic patients with FAs, very weak certainty exists in recommending CTP (eg, with CHX) over RTP for use with toothbrushing. CTP may have a very small effect on PS and a small effect on GS.
分析、评估和综合作者比较含化学治疗剂牙膏(CTP)和普通牙膏(RTP)对佩戴固定矫治器(FA)的正畸患者菌斑评分(PS)、牙龈评分(GS)和出血评分(BS)影响的论文。
使用预定义检索词检索PubMed-MEDLINE、Cochrane-CENTRAL和Embase数据库,直至2024年4月,以查找符合该目的的对照或随机对照临床试验。在符合条件的论文中,评估偏倚风险,提取感兴趣的数据,并进行描述性分析。如有可能,对特定因素进行荟萃分析和亚组分析。对证据质量和推荐强度进行评级。
在我们的检索和筛选中,我们获得了五篇描述八项比较的论文。潜在偏倚风险被评估为存在一些担忧至高风险水平,异质性被认为很大。描述性分析显示PS和BS无显著差异,GS的改善有利于CTP。最终评分的荟萃分析显示CTP显著降低了PS(标准化均值差[SMD]=-0.26;95%置信区间[CI]=-0.52,-0.01;P=.04)。然而,未观察到对GS和BS有显著影响。这些结果得到了含氯己定(CHX)的CTP亚组分析的支持(PS:均值差[MD]=-5.12;95%CI=-10.08,-0.15;P=.04)。证据质量被评为极低,推荐强度被判定为非常弱。
对于佩戴FA的正畸患者,在推荐使用CTP(如含CHX)而非RTP刷牙方面,确定性非常低。CTP可能对PS有非常小的影响,对GS有较小的影响。