ArticleInternational dental journal2011
Extent and quality of systematic review evidence related to minimum intervention in dentistry: essential oils, powered toothbrushes, triclosan, xylitol.
Article in International dental journal, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Herbal mouthwash containing extracts of Baccharis dracunculifolia as agent for the control of biofilm: clinical evaluation in humans.TheScientificWorldJournal · 2015Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate extent and quality of current systematic review evidence regarding: powered toothbrushes, triclosan toothpaste, essential oil mouthwashes, xylitol chewing gum.
methodsFive databases were searched for systematic reviews until 13 November 2010. INCLUSION CRITERIA: relevant to topic, systematic review according to title and/or abstract, published in English. Article exclusion criteria were based on QUOROM recommendations for the reporting of systematic review methods. Systematic review quality was judged using the AMSTAR tool. All trials included by reviews were assessed for selection bias.
results119 articles were found, of which 11 systematic reviews were included. Of these, six were excluded and five accepted: one for triclosan toothpaste; one for xylitol chewing gum; two for powered toothbrushes; one for essential oil mouthwashes. AMSTAR scores: triclosan toothpaste 7; powered toothbrushes 9 and 11; xylitol chewing gum 9; essential oil mouthwashes 8. In total, 75 (out of 76) reviewed trials were identified. In-depth assessment showed a high risk of selection bias for all trials.
conclusionsThe extent of available systematic review evidence is low. Although the few identified systematic reviews could be rated as of medium and high quality, the validity of their conclusions needs to be treated with caution, owing to high risk of selection bias in the reviewed trials. High quality randomised control trials are needed in order to provide convincing evidence regarding true clinical efficacy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.