AIM OF THE STUDY: To assess the effectiveness of miswak in maintaining periodontal health among adults.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effect of miswak published in PubMed, EBSCOHOST (Dentistry & Oral Sciences), SCOPUS, and Cochrane Database for Systematic Review (CDSR) from inception to May 08, 2022. The primary outcomes of interest were changes in the periodontal health measured with plaque and gingivitis scores as well as subgingival bacteria load. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach while the estimates of effect were pooled using a random-effects model.
RESULTS: Ten eligible articles were identified, of which 9 could be analysed quantitatively. The remaining report was included as part of the qualitative analysis. The meta-analysis showed that miswak was comparable with the toothbrush in reducing the mean plaque score (p= 0.08, SMD: 0.39, and 95% CI: -0.05 to 0.83) and mean gingivitis score (p= 0.37, SMD: 0.13, and 95% CI: -0.16 to 0.43). Even higher certainty of evidence for the effect of miswak on mean plaque reduction on labial surface of anterior teeth. However, the adjunctive effect of miswak was significantly more superior for reducing plaque (p= 0.01, SMD: 0.68, and 95% CI: 0.14 to 1.22) and gingivitis score (p= 0.04, SMD: 0.66, and 95% CI: 0.03 to 1.29).
CONCLUSIONS: Miswak effectively reduced plaque and gingivitis scores to a level comparable to toothbrush when used exclusively. Adjunctive miswak use was particularly effective in improving periodontal health. However, the included studies inadequately reported on the method of toothbrushing using miswak and the frequency of miswak use. Therefore, further clinical studies are recommended to explore on the advantages and proper method of miswak practice for optima outcome and safety.
METHODS: This study is a pragmatic, cluster-randomised, parallel-group, matched pair, controlled trial with blinded outcome assessment. Randomisation is performed using a computer-generated table with a 1:1 allocation comparing the SIMSP and the POHP involving 28 preschools in the Kampar district, Perak, Malaysia. The intervention consists of preschool visits by a group of dental therapists, in-class oral health lessons and daily toothbrushing conducted by class teacher, child home toothbrushing supervised by parents, and infographic oral health messages to parents. The control consists of the existing POHP that involves preschool visits by a group of dental therapists only. The trial lasts for 6 months. Primary outcome variable is the mean plaque score change after 6 months. To determine the feasibility of the SIMSP, a process evaluation will be conducted using the perspectives of dental therapists, teachers, and parents on the appropriateness, effectiveness, facilitators, and barriers to the SIMSP implementation as well as an audit trail to assess the trial intervention.
DISCUSSION: Cluster randomisation may lead to a random effect and cluster selection bias. These factors will be accounted for when analysing the data and interpreting the outcomes. The effectiveness of the SIMSP will be evaluated by comparing the results with those of the POHP.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04339647 . Registered on 5 April 2020 - Retrospectively registered.
METHODS: Databases including Medline, Embase and bibliographies were searched from inception to 1 April 2023. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 7 days or longer duration of oil pulling with edible oils in comparison to chlorhexidine or other mouthwashes or oral hygiene practice concerning the parameters of plaque index scores (PI), gingival index scores (GI), modified gingival index scores (MGI) and bacteria counts were included. Cochrane's Risk of Bias (ROB) tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) framework were employed to determine the quality of evidence. Two authors independently conducted study selection and data extraction. Meta-analyses of the effect of oil pulling on the parameters were conducted using an inverse-variance random-effects model.
RESULTS: Twenty-five trials involving 1184 participants were included. Twenty-one trials comparing oil pulling (n = 535) to chlorhexidine (n = 286) and non-chlorhexidine intervention (n = 205) were pooled for meta-analysis. More than half of the trials (n = 17) involved participants with no reported oral health issues. The duration of intervention ranged from 7 to 45 days, with half of the trials using sesame oil. When compared to non-chlorhexidine mouthwash interventions, oil pulling clinically and significantly improved MGI scores (Standardized mean difference, SMD = -1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.31, -0.97). Chlorhexidine was more effective in reducing the PI scores compared to oil pulling, with an SMD of 0.33 (95% CI: 0.17, 0.49). The overall quality of the body of evidence was very low.
CONCLUSIONS: There was a probable benefit of oil pulling in improving gingival health. Chlorhexidine remained superior in reducing the amount of plaque, compared to oil pulling. However, there was very low certainty in the evidence albeit the clinically beneficial effect of oil pulling intervention.
METHODS: A double-blinded, placebo-controlled prospective interventional study was conducted in school children aged 8-14 years. The study participants were divided into four groups depending upon the mouthwash used: Group 1 (aloe vera), Group 2 (chlorhexidine), Group 3 (tea tree oil) and Group 4 (placebo). The variables studied included plaque index, gingival index and salivary Streptococcus mutans counts, which were recorded at baseline, 4 weeks after supervised mouth rinse and after 2 weeks of stopping the mouth rinse.
RESULTS: A total of 89 boys and 63 girls were included. A statistically significant decrease in all variables was noted after the use of both the herbal preparations at the end of 4 weeks which was maintained after the 2-week washout period (p
METHODS: A survey consisting of two validated questionnaires was distributed to dental patients registered at the University of Malaya Faculty of Dentistry. The Fonseca Anamnestic Index (FAI) evaluates the prevalence and severity of TMD, while the Oral Health Impact Profile - Temporomandibular Disorder (OHIP-TMD) appraises the effects of TMD on oral health-related QoL.
RESULTS: Out of 342 patients (aged 16 to 50 years, 45% male and 55% female) enrolled in the survey, 50.9% had varying degrees of TMD. All 7 domains of OHIP-TMD showed a statistically significant correlation with TMD severity.
CONCLUSION: TMD seems to be prevalent among Malaysian dental patients. Not only does TMD affect the QoL of an individual, but the more severe the degree of reported symptoms, the poorer their perceived oral health QoL.