目的 对电动牙刷和手动牙刷在去除菌斑、维护牙龈健康、对色素和牙结石的作用、可靠性、不良作用和成本等进行比较.方法 计算机检索Cochrane口腔健康协作组临床试验资料库(截至2004年6月17日)、Cochran临床对照试验中心资料库(Cochrane图书馆2004第2期)、MEDLINE(1966～2004)、EMBASE(1980～2004第2周)和CINAHL(1982～2004第2周),并与制造商联系以获取更多资料.根据下列标准纳入随机对照试验:随机分配研究对象;参加者为手运动无障碍的普通人群;干预措施为无监督的手动或电动牙刷刷牙,至少4周;主要结局指标为试验期间菌斑和牙龈炎的变化.由6个作者独立评价并纳入研究资料.用随机效应模型进行Meta分析,用标准化均数差(SMD)及其95%CI测量效果.检查可能的异质性来源,并针对研究质量和发表偏倚进行敏感性分析.为便于讨论,将SMD转换为百分率.结果 对包含3 855例研究对象的42个试验进行系统评价,结果显示,旋转振动型电动牙刷去除菌斑和减低牙龈炎的效果在短期内明显优于手动牙刷,并在3个月以上的研究中显示降低了牙龈炎指数.在1～3个月的研究中,菌斑SMD为-0.43 [95%CI (-0.72, 0.14)],牙龈炎SMD为-0.62 [95%CI (-0.90, 0.34)],Quigley Hein菌斑指数降低11%,Loe and Silness龈炎指数降低6%.在3个月以上的研究中,菌斑指数SMD为-1.29 [95%CI (-2.67, 0.08)], 龈炎指数为-0.51 [95%CI (-1.76, 0.25)],Ainamo Bay探诊出血指数降低17%.短期研究之间有异质性,敏感性分析显示当选择高质量的研究时结果是肯定的,没有证据表明有发表偏倚.采取其他设计的电动牙刷并不比手动牙刷更优.对成本、可靠性和不良作用的报道不一致,已报道的不良作用都是局限的、暂时的.结论 旋转振动型电动牙刷去除牙菌斑、减少牙龈炎的效果优于手动牙刷.遵守方法学指南和更标准化的设计有益于将来的研究和Meta分析.
Objective To assess efficacy of a mouthwash containing 0.1% cetylpiridinium on gingivitis and plaque and its safety. Methods Multi-center randomized double-blind trial with positive control and split-mouth comparison was designed. Scaling on teeth of left side were conducted at do then on those of right side at D8. The cases rinsed five times a day in same way with assigned agents. Efficacy was measured using before-after differences of clinical and microbial variables. Re-examinations were scheduled at D4 and D8. Brushing was refrained between D0 and D4, resumed between D4 and D8. Results There were 144 patients with gingivitis included, 4 lost follow up. Data of 69 cases in test group and 71 in control group could be analyzed. Baseline data analysis showed that distributions of sex, age and values of clinical and microbial variables in both groups were well comparable. At D4 plaque accumulations of the scaled side in both groups were in same level, and Gingival index (GI), sulcus bleeding index (SBI) and VAS for halitosis were significantly reduced. At D8 the measurements of plaque index (PI), GI, SBI and VAS of halitosis decreased significantly more than those of D4. More than half of the suspected pathogenic strains were eliminated and log value of its CFU/ml decreased significantly but at same level in both groups. The balance of intra-oral bacterial flora was not disturbed. Seventeen cases in test group (24.6%) had minor and transient adverse reactions related to the mouthwash. Antimicrobial tests in vitro confirmed that the test agent could kill or inhibit growth of the pathogenic bacteria involving with oropharyngeal infection, gingivitis, periodontal diseases and caries. Conclusion The mouthwash containing cetylpiridinium could inhibit plaque, reduce severity of gingivitis and halitosis, with acceptable minor adverse reactions, similar to those of the marketed cetylpiridinum solution.