Resumen
Objectives
To systematically review the literature on the efficacy of interdental cleaning devices (ICDs) used with active substances, as adjuncts to toothbrushing, in comparison with toothbrushing alone or with ICDs without active substances.
Materials and methods
Searches for randomized clinical trials were performed in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane (CENTRAL), and Web of Science. Two independent researchers performed study selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment; a third one resolved any disagreement. Meta-analysis was not feasible, and a narrative approach was used to synthesize the evidence.
Results
Seven studies were included. Dental floss with chlorhexidine was used in five studies, whereas interdental brushes with chlorhexidine and cetylpyridinium chloride were used in one study each. ICDs with active substances resulted in significantly higher antiplaque and antigingivitis efficacies than without ICDs (n = 3). ICDs with and without active substances demonstrated contrasting results. For this comparison, six studies were included for each outcome. Significantly higher antigingivitis efficacy of ICDs with active substances was noted in four studies, whereas significantly higher antiplaque efficacy of ICDs with active substances was reported in three studies. All comparisons demonstrated a very low certainty of evidence.
Conclusions
There is no robust evidence for the additional clinical efficacy of ICDs with active substances regarding their antiplaque and antigingivitis efficacies. These devices may have additional clinical efficacy when compared with the absence of interproximal hygiene.
Clinical relevance
The use of ICDs helps maintain or achieve periodontal health. However, the adjunct use of active substances may not provide additional benefits.
To systematically review the literature on the efficacy of interdental cleaning devices (ICDs) used with active substances, as adjuncts to toothbrushing, in comparison with toothbrushing alone or with ICDs without active substances.
Materials and methods
Searches for randomized clinical trials were performed in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane (CENTRAL), and Web of Science. Two independent researchers performed study selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment; a third one resolved any disagreement. Meta-analysis was not feasible, and a narrative approach was used to synthesize the evidence.
Results
Seven studies were included. Dental floss with chlorhexidine was used in five studies, whereas interdental brushes with chlorhexidine and cetylpyridinium chloride were used in one study each. ICDs with active substances resulted in significantly higher antiplaque and antigingivitis efficacies than without ICDs (n = 3). ICDs with and without active substances demonstrated contrasting results. For this comparison, six studies were included for each outcome. Significantly higher antigingivitis efficacy of ICDs with active substances was noted in four studies, whereas significantly higher antiplaque efficacy of ICDs with active substances was reported in three studies. All comparisons demonstrated a very low certainty of evidence.
Conclusions
There is no robust evidence for the additional clinical efficacy of ICDs with active substances regarding their antiplaque and antigingivitis efficacies. These devices may have additional clinical efficacy when compared with the absence of interproximal hygiene.
Clinical relevance
The use of ICDs helps maintain or achieve periodontal health. However, the adjunct use of active substances may not provide additional benefits.
| Idioma original | Inglés |
|---|---|
| Páginas (desde-hasta) | 2253–2267 |
| Publicación | Clinical Oral Investigations |
| Volumen | 26 |
| DOI | |
| Estado | Publicada - mar. 2022 |