OBJECTIVE: This study aims to systematically review the wide range of data and literatures related to siwak practice and its effect on periodontal health.
METHOD: The review was conducted based on scoping review techniques, searching literature in EBSCOHOST, PubMed, SCOPUS and Google scholar databases using the following search terms: "siwak' or 'miswak' or 'chewing stick" for intervention, and "periodontium or 'periodontal' or 'periodontal health' or 'periodontal disease" for outcome. Articles published between January 1990 to March 2021 and written in English language were included.
RESULTS: A total of 721 articles collected from the search and 21 of them were eligible for the final analysis. Results of this study was described based on clinical and antibacterial reporting of siwak, method of siwak practice and its adverse effect on oral health. Siwak was found effective at removing dental plaque and improving periodontal health over time although its effect on subgingival microbiota was inconclusive. Presence of gingival recession and clinical attachment loss were much more commonly reported in siwak users, attributable to variations in the methods employed for tooth cleaning using the siwak.
CONCLUSION: There is substantial evidence that the lack of standardised reporting for effective siwak use may have resulted in contradictory findings about its oral hygiene benefits and adverse effects. As such, future work on safe and effective siwak practice is to be advocated among its users.
Methods: A total of 65 adult cardiac patients were randomly distributed into two groups, i.e., intervention and control group, who were baseline smokers and assessed in three phases. Initially, the first, second, and third phase collected the information about their demographic details, their smoking status, and smoking status using cotinine amylase strip, respectively.
Results: It showed that behavioral change was significant for the control group (P value = 0.031), while motivation level improved for both groups (i.e., control, P value = 0.000 and intervention group, P value = 0.001). The smoke quitting status percentage was higher for intervention group 41.9% and lower for control group 20.6%; however, the P value was insignificant for both control group (1.000) and intervention group (0.250).
Conclusions: This study suggests a need for more personal testimonial videos to focus on other smoking-related diseases.