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).

Materials and Methods: Fifty-nine children were recruited in this study that were allocated randomly into each group with twenty children as follows: group 1: pictorial, group 2: video, and group 3: control. Mean plaque and gingival scores were noted before and after the use of different interventions. Oral hygiene was categorized as "excellent," "good," and "fair." Gingival health was categorized as "healthy," "mild gingivitis," and "moderate gingivitis."

Results: Thirty-four children (57.6%) were from 12-13 years of age bracket, and 25 (42.4%) belonged to 14-16 years of age. Regarding gender, there were 37 (62.7%) males and 22 (37.3%) females. About comparison of mean gingival and plaque scores before and after interventions in each group, a significant difference was found in group 1 (p < 0.001) and group 2 (p < 0.001), as compared to group 3 where the difference in scores was not significant (p > 0.05).

OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this review were to assess the effects of various interventions used to control halitosis due to oral diseases only. We excluded studies including patients with halitosis secondary to systemic disease and halitosis-masking interventions.

SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 8 April 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 3) in the Cochrane Library (searched 8 April 2019), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 8 April 2019), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 8 April 2019). We also searched LILACS BIREME (1982 to 19 April 2019), the National Database of Indian Medical Journals (1985 to 19 April 2019), OpenGrey (1992 to 19 April 2019), and CINAHL EBSCO (1937 to 19 April 2019). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov (8 April 2019), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (8 April 2019), the ISRCTN Registry (19 April 2019), the Clinical Trials Registry - India (19 April 2019), were searched for ongoing trials. We also searched the cross-references of included studies and systematic reviews published on the topic. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which involved adults over the age of 16, and any intervention for managing halitosis compared to another or placebo, or no intervention. The active interventions or controls were administered over a minimum of one week and with no upper time limit. We excluded quasi-randomised trials, trials comparing the results for less than one week follow-up, and studies including advanced periodontitis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two pairs of review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We estimated mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS: We included 44 trials in the review with 1809 participants comparing an intervention with a placebo or a control. The age of participants ranged from 17 to 77 years. Most of the trials reported on short-term follow-up (ranging from one week to four weeks). Only one trial reported long-term follow-up (three months). Three studies were at low overall risk of bias, 16 at high overall risk of bias, and the remaining 25 at unclear overall risk of bias. We compared different types of interventions which were categorised as mechanical debridement, chewing gums, systemic deodorising agents, topical agents, toothpastes, mouthrinse/mouthwash, tablets, and combination methods. Mechanical debridement: for mechanical tongue cleaning versus no tongue cleaning, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported organoleptic test (OLT) scores (MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.07; 2 trials, 46 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events. Chewing gums: for 0.6% eucalyptus chewing gum versus placebo chewing gum, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported OLT scores (MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.11; 1 trial, 65 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events. Systemic deodorising agents: for 1000 mg champignon versus placebo, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome patient-reported visual analogue scale (VAS) scores (MD -1.07, 95% CI -14.51 to 12.37; 1 trial, 40 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for dentist-reported OLT score or adverse events. Topical agents: for hinokitiol gel versus placebo gel, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported OLT scores (MD -0.27, 95% CI -1.26 to 0.72; 1 trial, 18 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events. Toothpastes: for 0.3% triclosan toothpaste versus control toothpaste, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported OLT scores (MD -3.48, 95% CI -3.77 to -3.19; 1 trial, 81 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events. Mouthrinse/mouthwash: for mouthwash containing chlorhexidine and zinc acetate versus placebo mouthwash, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported OLT scores (MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.58 to 0.18; 1 trial, 44 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events. Tablets: no data were reported on key outcomes for this comparison. Combination methods: for brushing plus cetylpyridium mouthwash versus brushing, the evidence was uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported OLT scores (MD -0.48, 95% CI -0.72 to -0.24; 1 trial, 70 participants; low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events.

OBJECTIVES: To compare manual and powered toothbrushes in everyday use, by people of any age, in relation to the removal of plaque, the health of the gingivae, staining and calculus, dependability, adverse effects and cost.

SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 23 January 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 1), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 23 January 2014), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 23 January 2014) and CINAHL via EBSCO (1980 to 23 January 2014). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register and the WHO Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of at least four weeks of unsupervised powered toothbrushing versus manual toothbrushing for oral health in children and adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Random-effects models were used provided there were four or more studies included in the meta-analysis, otherwise fixed-effect models were used. Data were classed as short term (one to three months) and long term (greater than three months).

MAIN RESULTS: Fifty-six trials met the inclusion criteria; 51 trials involving 4624 participants provided data for meta-analysis. Five trials were at low risk of bias, five at high and 46 at unclear risk of bias.There is moderate quality evidence that powered toothbrushes provide a statistically significant benefit compared with manual toothbrushes with regard to the reduction of plaque in both the short term (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.50 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.70 to -0.31); 40 trials, n = 2871) and long term (SMD -0.47 (95% CI -0.82 to -0.11; 14 trials, n = 978). These results correspond to an 11% reduction in plaque for the Quigley Hein index (Turesky) in the short term and 21% reduction long term. Both meta-analyses showed high levels of heterogeneity (I(2) = 83% and 86% respectively) that was not explained by the different powered toothbrush type subgroups.With regard to gingivitis, there is moderate quality evidence that powered toothbrushes again provide a statistically significant benefit when compared with manual toothbrushes both in the short term (SMD -0.43 (95% CI -0.60 to -0.25); 44 trials, n = 3345) and long term (SMD -0.21 (95% CI -0.31 to -0.12); 16 trials, n = 1645). This corresponds to a 6% and 11% reduction in gingivitis for the Löe and Silness index respectively. Both meta-analyses showed high levels of heterogeneity (I(2) = 82% and 51% respectively) that was not explained by the different powered toothbrush type subgroups.The number of trials for each type of powered toothbrush varied: side to side (10 trials), counter oscillation (five trials), rotation oscillation (27 trials), circular (two trials), ultrasonic (seven trials), ionic (four trials) and unknown (five trials). The greatest body of evidence was for rotation oscillation brushes which demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in plaque and gingivitis at both time points.

METHODS: This study included 3 groups with 15 orthodontic patients in each. The control group included patients who had no probiotic treatment, the subjects in the kefir group consumed 2 × 100 ml of kefir (Atatürk Orman Ciftligi, Ankara, Turkey) per day, and the subjects in the toothpaste group brushed their teeth with toothpaste with probiotic content (GD toothpaste; Dental Asia Manufacturing, Shah Alam, Selangor, Malaysia) twice a day. Samples were collected at 3 times: beginning of the study, 3 weeks later, and 6 weeks later. The salivary flow rate, buffer capacity, and Streptococcus mutans and Lactobacillus levels in the saliva were evaluated. Chair-side kits were used to determine the S mutans and Lactobacillus levels.

RESULTS: A statistically significant decrease was observed in the salivary S mutans and Lactobacillus levels in the kefir and toothpaste groups compared with the control group (P <0.05). A statistically significant increase was observed in the toothpaste group compared with the control and kefir groups in buffer capacity. Changes in the salivary flow rate were not statistically significant.