首页> 外文期刊>Evidence-based dentistry >Evidence not strong enough to advocate powered toothbrushes over manual for orthodontic patients.
【24h】

Evidence not strong enough to advocate powered toothbrushes over manual for orthodontic patients.

机译:证据不足以提倡电动牙刷优于正畸患者的手册。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
       

摘要

Studies were sourced using Medline, Embase, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane Library, Institute for Scientific Information proceedings, Cambridge Scientific Abstracts, UMI Proquest, Trials Central (www.trialscentral.org) and the metaregister of controlled trials (www.controlled-trials.coms), along with the references of identified articles. No restrictions were placed on year of publication, publication status or language of the retrieved trials.Randomised controlled trials were selected that compared powered and manual toothbrushes and involved participants of any age who wore fixed appliances, and which reported outcome measures quantifying gingival inflammation. Cross-over studies with a washout period of at least 1 month between experimental periods were also included. Split-mouth studies and trials involving interventions that combined toothbrushing with the use of antimicrobial mouthrinses, irrigation devices, or interdental cleansing and those of less than 4 weeks[primes] duration were excluded.Initial assessment and data abstraction was carried out by two reviewers independently. The quality of the trials was evaluated by assessing randomisation, allocation concealment, blinding of the examiner, description of losses, and the use of intention to treat analyses. Trials were divided into categories depending on the mode of action of the powered toothbrush. The weighted mean difference with 95% confidence intervals was used to express the comparative treatment effect. The random-effects method for meta-analysis was used to combine treatment effects across studies in each category. Heterogeneity was investigated visually, using the I2 test and the Cochran test.Only five trials were considered appropriate for inclusion in the meta-analysis, and these could be grouped into four categories according to mode of action. None of the studies was of more than 60 days' duration. Based on quality assessment and the short experimental period of these trials, there is currently not sufficient evidence to suggest particular efficacy of powered toothbrushes in reducing gingivitis in people who are undergoing fixed orthodontic appliance therapy.No conclusions can be drawn on the comparative effectiveness of powered toothbrushes in reducing gingivitis in clinical orthodontic practice. Greater standardisation of the methods used is desirable in future trials.
机译:研究使用Medline,Embase,护理和相关健康文献累积索引,Cochrane图书馆,科学信息研究所,Cambridge Scientific Abstracts,UMI Proquest,Trials Central(www.trialscentral.org)和对照试验的metaregister(www.trialscentral.org)进行。 (.control-trials.com),以及已识别文章的参考。对发表的年份,发表状态或检索到的语言没有任何限制。选择了随机对照试验,比较电动牙刷和手动牙刷,以及使用固定器具的任何年龄段的参与者,并报告了量化牙龈炎症的结果指标。实验期间之间至少有1个月的清除期的交叉研究也包括在内。排除了将牙刷与抗菌漱口水,冲洗设备或齿间清洁相结合且持续时间少于4周 [primes]的干预措施分开进行的分口研究和试验。两名评价者进行了初步评估和数据提取独立地。通过评估随机性,分配隐蔽性,检查者的盲目性,损失的描述以及意图使用分析来评估试验的质量。根据电动牙刷的作用方式将试验分为几类。具有95%置信区间的加权平均差用于表示比较治疗效果。荟萃分析的随机效应方法用于合并各类别研究中的治疗效果。使用I2检验和Cochran检验对异质性进行了目测研究,认为只有五项试验适合纳入荟萃分析,并且根据作用方式可以将其分为四类。没有一项研究的持续时间超过60天。根据质量评估和这些试验的短暂试验期,目前尚无足够证据表明电动牙刷在正畸正畸矫治器治疗的人群中减少牙龈炎的特殊功效。关于电动牙刷的相对有效性尚无定论在临床正畸实践中,牙刷可减少牙龈炎。将来的试验中需要对所用方法进行更大程度的标准化。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号