Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31054209›Full record

SynthesisInternational journal of dental hygiene2020

Does chlorhexidine mouthwash, with an anti-discoloration system, reduce tooth surface discoloration without losing its efficacy? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Bregje W M Van Swaaij, G A Fridus van der Weijden, Eric W P Bakker, Filippo Graziani, Dagmar E Slot

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in International journal of dental hygiene, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Bregje W M Van SwaaijDepartment of Dental Hygiene, Hogeschool Arnhem Nijmegen, University of Applied Sciences, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7364-8612
G A Fridus van der WeijdenDepartment of Periodontology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5075-8384
Eric W P BakkerDivision Clinical Methods and Public Health, Academic Medical Centre (AMC), University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Filippo GrazianiDepartment of Surgical, Medical Medical and Molecular Pathology and Critical Care Medicine, University of Pisa, Pisa, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8780-7306
Dagmar E SlotDepartment of Periodontology, Academic Centre for Dentistry Amsterdam (ACTA), University of Amsterdam, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7234-0037

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo investigate whether chlorhexidine mouthwash (CHX-MW), with an anti-discoloration system(ADS), is effective in preventing extrinsic tooth surface discoloration. Additionally, this paper seeks to evaluate whether CHX combined with an ADS maintains its efficacy with respect to reducing plaque and gingivitis scores. MATERIAL AND

methodsMEDLINE-PubMed and Cochrane-Central were searched up to October 2018 to identify eligible studies. Papers evaluating the effect of CHX-MW+ADS compared to CHX without an ADS were included. A descriptive analysis and when feasible a meta-analysis was performed.

resultsScreening resulted in 13 eligible publications, presenting 16 comparisons. Six of these evaluated the MW in a non-brushing model and ten as an adjunct to toothbrushing. A descriptive analysis demonstrated that the majority showed no differences in bleeding, gingivitis and plaque scores. This was confirmed by the meta-analysis. In non-brushing experiments, the difference-of-means (DiffM) for plaque scores was 0.10 (P = 0.45, 95%CI: [-0.15; 0.34]) and for the gingival index 0.04 (P = 0.15,95%CI: [-0.02; 0.11]). The DiffM in brushing studies for plaque scores was 0.01 (P = 0.29, 95%CI: [-0.01; 0.02]) and for the gingival index 0.00 (P = 0.87,95%CI: [-0.05; 0.06]). With respect to staining scores, the meta-analysis revealed that in non-brushing studies, the standardized mean difference was 3.19 (P = 0.0005,95%CI: [-3.98; -1.41]) while in brushing studies, the DiffM was 0.12 (P = 0.95,95%CI: [-3.32; 3.55]).

conclusionThere is moderate quality evidence from non-brushing studies that the addition of an ADS to CHX-MW reduces tooth surface discoloration and does not appear to affect its properties with respect to gingival inflammation and plaque scores. In brushing studies, there is also moderate quality evidence that ADS does not affect the anti-plaque and anti-gingivitis efficacy of CHX. The majority of comparisons and the meta-analysis including these indicate no significant effect of ADS on tooth staining in situations where the mouthwash is used in addition to toothbrushing.

Indexed as

Anti-Infective Agents, LocalDental PlaqueGingivitisTooth DiscolorationChlorhexidineHumansMouthwashesAnti-Infective Agents, LocalChlorhexidineMouthwashesanti-discoloration systemchlorhexidinegingivitisplaquereviewtooth surface discoloration

Identifiers

PMID31054209
PMCPMC7003798

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.