DATA: Studies assessing OHRQoL amongst patients aged ≥18 years, before and after rehabilitation with RPDs of any type and design, were included. The quality of included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tools. Meta-analysis was conducted using a random-effect model.
SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL, up to March 29, 2022.
STUDY SELECTION AND RESULTS: Thirteen studies were eligible and eight were included in the meta-analysis. The studies had moderate to serious risk of bias. There was a very low level of certainty that OHRQoL, as measured using OHIP-14, improved 3 months after RPDs were fitted (222 participants, MD: -12.0, 95% CI: -16.1, -7.9, p<0.001) and after 6 months (101 participants, MD: -10.5, 95% CI: -16.4, -4.6, p<0.001). At 12 months post-treatment, RPD rehabilitation did not result in statistically significant improvement in OHIP-14 scores (62 participants, MD: -12.7, 95% CI: -26.1, 0.6, p = 0.06). However, the assessment using OHIP-49 at 12 months showed significant improvement (87 participants, MD: -34.8, 95% CI: -41.9, -27.7, p<0.001), with low certainty of evidence.
CONCLUSIONS: Based on the limited evidence available, this review found that RPD rehabilitation appear to improve OHRQoL in the short term up to 6 months, with a very low level of certainty. The long-term effect of RPD treatment on OHRQoL after 12 months is inconclusive. There is currently insufficient evidence on the effect of RPD treatment on OHRQoL. This review highlights the need for more and better quality studies.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Data on RPD outcomes are summarised, aiding clinicians in providing evidence-based patient-centred care that matches patients' needs and expectations. Recommendations for future research were also highlighted.
REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022328606.
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: 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.
Materials and Methods: It was a cross-sectional study involving a two-stage sampling to select the district and villages. A total of 325 participants were selected based on convenience sampling.
Results: Almost half of the participants rated their oral health as poor or average. The mean GOHAI score was 52.96 (±7.749), ranging from 29 to 60. The GOHAI score was statistically significantly lower for female gender (P = 0.025), lower education level (P = 0.001), and elderly (P = 0.001). The GSROH score was also statistically significant with GOHAI score (P = 0.001).
Conclusions: A limited number of studies were conducted in this area, particularly in the vulnerable population of OA. Our study found that half of the OA living in the fringe had a poor GOHAI score. It is, therefore, suggested that potential study and intervention programs concentrate on the low GOHAI score group; the male, lower educational context, and the elderly.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A self-administered questionnaire (content- and face-validated) survey was undertaken, classroom style, amongst final-year nursing students from selected Malaysian (n = 122, Response rate=97.6%) and Australian (n = 299, Response rate=54.7%) institutions. Quantitative data were analysed via Statistical Package for Social Science software (Chi-square and Fisher's exact tests, p ≤ 0.01).
RESULTS: Significantly more Malaysian nursing students, compared to those in Australia, reported having encountered patients with OH issues (98.4% vs. 82.9%), namely halitosis (87.7% vs. 62.2%), oral ulcers (63.1% vs. 41.1%), oral/dental trauma (36.9% vs. 21.1%) and caries in children (28.7% vs. 7.7%). Less than half of Malaysian and Australian nursing students reported that they received adequate OH training (48.4% vs. 36.6%, p ≤ 0.01), especially in detecting oral cancer (18.0.0% vs. 22.6%, p ≤ 0.01) and preventing oral diseases (46.7% vs. 41.7%, p ≤ 0.01). Students in both countries demonstrated positive attitudes and believed in their role in OH care. Most students agreed that they should receive training in OH, especially in smoking cessation and providing OH care for patients with special needs. They also opined that a standardized evidence-based oral hygiene protocol is needed.
CONCLUSION: Support for education and practice in this area of patient care suggested positive implications for further development of nurses' roles in OH promotion and management.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional comparative study was performed on subjects from multiple dental centres in Malaysia using a questionnaire covering sociodemographics, OHRQoL using the Malaysian Oral Health Impact Profile questionnaire, OHIP-14(M) and self-reported symptoms. Participants with severe CP were age-and gender-matched with periodontally healthy/mild periodontitis (HMP) participants based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Full mouth periodontal examination was performed on participants. Outcome measures were OHIP-14(M) prevalence of impact and severity of impact scores.
RESULTS: One hundred and thirty (130) participants comprising 65 severe CP and 65 HMP participants were included in the study. Prevalence of impact on OHRQoL was significantly higher in the severe CP than HMP group, with an odds ratio of 3. Mean OHIP-14(M) score was significantly higher in the severe CP (18.26 ± 10.22) compared to HMP (11.28± 8.09) group. The dimensions of psychological discomfort and functional limitation, and factors such as 'discomfort due to food stuck' and 'felt shy' were impacted more in severe CP compared to HMP group (p < 0.05). When compared with the HMP group, generalised severe CP participants showed higher prevalence of impact on OHRQoL [OR=5] (p < 0.05) compared to localised severe CP [OR=2] (p = 0.05). Participants who had experienced self-reported symptoms had statistically significant impacts on OHRQoL.
CONCLUSIONS: Severe CP had a greater impact on OHRQoL compared to HMP. Impacts were mainly for functional limitation and psychological discomfort dimensions. When considering extent of disease, the impact on OHRQoL was mostly in generalised severe CP subgroup.
METHODS: Subjects from dental and RA clinics were screened. Complete periodontal examinations were performed. Subjects were divided into 4 groups: RA-PD, RA, PD and healthy controls (HC). Questionnaires on characteristics and Malaysian versions of Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14(M)) and Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ-DI)) were answered.
RESULTS: A total of 187 subjects were included (29 RA-PD, 58 RA, 43 PD and 57 HC). OHIP-14(M) severity score was highest in the PD group (17.23 ± 10.36) but only significantly higher than the HC group (p