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.
Materials and Methods: A total of 111 subjects who fulfilled the inclusion and exclusion criteria were randomly included in the study. The subjects were recalled after 1 month of the commencement of fixed orthodontic treatment for the recording of baseline data including plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), and modified papillary bleeding index (MPBI). After recording of the baseline data, the subjects were randomly allocated into each of the intervention groups, i.e., group A (manual tooth brush), group B (powered tooth brush), and group C (manual tooth brush combined with mouthwash) by lottery method. Further, all the subjects were recalled after 1 and 2 months for recording the data.
Results: Regarding plaque levels, it was seen that there was a highly statistically significant difference between the three groups (P = 0.001), with the manual tooth brush combined with chlorhexidine mouthwash group recording the lowest mean PI score of 0.5 ± 0.39. A comparison of the mean GI scores among the groups at the end of 2 months shows a highly statistically significant difference (P = 0.001). The mean MPBI scores at the end of 2 months were highly statistically significant among the three groups (P = 0.001), with the group C recording the lowest mean MPBI score of 0.3 ± 0.3.
Conclusion: The powered tooth brush group subjects exhibited significantly lesser PI, GI, and MPBI scores than the manual tooth brush group at the end of 2 months, whereas the manual tooth brush combined with chlorhexidine mouth wash group subjects showed maximum improvement, having significantly lesser PI and GI scores than the powered tooth brush group.
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.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-over study was conducted in 2 phases of 6 weeks duration each with an intervening 2-week washout. Twenty-five participants meeting inclusion criteria were randomly allocated into groups A (13) and B (12). In phase 1: group A was assigned T1 and group B was assigned T2. Toothbrushing was advised twice daily for 2 minutes by modified bass technique after meals. At baseline, 3 weeks and 6 weeks the wear index (WI), plaque index (PI) and gingival index (GI) were recorded. Following washout in phase 2 group A was assigned T2 and group B was assigned T1 and the same study protocol was followed.
RESULTS: Intra-group comparison between baseline, 3 and 6 weeks by the paired t-test resulted in significant reduction in PI, GI and increase in WI (p <0.05) for T1 and T2. Inter-group comparison using the unpaired t-test resulted in WI for T1 being significantly higher (p <0.05) at 3 weeks and lower at 6 weeks (p <0.05) compared to T2. PI for T1 was significantly higher at 3 weeks (p <0.05) and lower at 6 weeks (p <0.05) compared to T2. No significant difference in GI scores between T1 and T2 at 3 and 6 weeks was observed (p >0.05).
CONCLUSION: Charcoal infused bristles demonstrated less wear and more plaque removal compared to nylon bristles.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Charcoal infused bristles demonstrate less wear compared to nylon bristles.
METHODS: A multicenter randomized clinical trial was conducted on hospitalized stroke survivors. Those in the control group were given standard care of oral hygiene (a manual toothbrush and toothpaste), whereas those in the test group were given intense care of oral hygiene (a powered toothbrush and 1% chlorhexidine oral gel). Oral clinical assessments were carried out, and microbiological samples were collected, using concentrated oral rinse samples at 3 time points: baseline, 3 months, and 6 months.
RESULTS: The prevalence of oral yeast was significantly reduced in the test group at 6 months (P < .05), but no significant difference was observed over time. A significant reduction was observed in the prevalence of Staphylococcus aureus (P < .01) and aerobic and facultative gram-negative bacilli over time (P < .05), but there were no significant differences noted between groups at 6 months. Candida albicans and Klebsiella pneumoniae were the prominent pathogens determined throughout the trial. Kluyvera strains have also been isolated from this cohort.
CONCLUSION: Oral hygiene intervention using a powered tooth brush and 1% chlorhexidine oral gel was effective in reducing the prevalence of oral opportunistic pathogens.
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.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Powered toothbrushes reduce plaque and gingivitis more than manual toothbrushing in the short and long term. The clinical importance of these findings remains unclear. Observation of methodological guidelines and greater standardisation of design would benefit both future trials and meta-analyses.Cost, reliability and side effects were inconsistently reported. Any reported side effects were localised and only temporary.
Materials and Methods: This randomized controlled trial was conducted on 40 healthy children aged between 10 and 12 years of age who were randomly assigned to either of the groups: Group I--Chewable Toothbrushes and Group II--Manual Toothbrushes. Following oral prophylaxis, baseline records of oral hygiene indices (Simplified oral hygiene index (OHI-S) in indexed teeth and Turesky modification of Quigley Hein plaque index (TMQHI) were taken. Baseline Saliva samples were collected and sent for Streptococcus mutans counts. Children were then instructed to use their respective toothbrush twice daily for a week. Oral hygiene indices and S. mutans counts were repeated after 1 week.
Results: Differences in pre-brushing and post-brushing plaque scores and salivary S. mutans counts were statistically significant when compared using paired-sample t test and independent-sample t test. There was a significant reduction in salivary S. mutans counts after using both chewable and manual toothbrushes. However, there was no statistically significant difference between the two groups (P = 0.08).
Conclusion: Chewable toothbrushes are equally effective in plaque control when compared to manual toothbrushes. These can be a reliable alternative for children who lack manual dexterity.