Efficacy of aloe vera and probiotic mouthwashes vs fluoride mouthwash on Streptococcus mutans in plaque around brackets of orthodontic patients: a randomized clinical trial.

IF 3 2区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE
Nisha D S, Biju Sebastian, Rishad Kalappurakkal, Richard Kirubakaran
{"title":"Efficacy of aloe vera and probiotic mouthwashes vs fluoride mouthwash on Streptococcus mutans in plaque around brackets of orthodontic patients: a randomized clinical trial.","authors":"Nisha D S,&nbsp;Biju Sebastian,&nbsp;Rishad Kalappurakkal,&nbsp;Richard Kirubakaran","doi":"10.2319/082222-595.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To compare efficacy of aloe vera and probiotic mouthwashes vs fluoride mouthwash on Streptococcus mutans (S. mutans) in the plaque of orthodontic patients and to assess patient-reported outcomes and compliance.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>This prospective randomized clinical trial included 90 patients aged 12-35 years and in permanent dentition, who were randomly allocated in a 1:1:1 ratio to three mouthwash groups: aloe vera, probiotic, or fluoride. Smartphone-based applications were used to improve patient compliance. The primary outcome was the change in S. mutans levels in plaque between two times: pre-intervention and after 30 days using real-time polymerase chain reaction (Q-PCR). Secondary outcomes were the evaluation of patient-reported outcomes and compliance.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Mean differences between aloe vera vs probiotic: -0.53 (95% CI: -3.57 to 2.51), aloe vera vs fluoride: -1.99 (95% CI, -4.8 to 0.82), and probiotic vs fluoride: -1.46 (95% CI: -4.74 to 1.82) were not significant, P = .467. Intragroup comparison demonstrated a significant mean difference in all three groups of -0.67 (95% CI: -0.79 to -0.55), -1.27 (95% CI: -1.57 to -0.97), and -2.23 (95% CI: -2.44 to -2.00) respectively, P < .001. Adherence was above 95% in all groups. No significant differences in frequency of responses to patient-reported outcomes were found among groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>No significant difference in efficacy among the three mouthwashes in reducing S. mutans level in plaque was found. Patient-reported assessments concerning burning sensation, taste, and tooth staining found no significant differences among mouthwashes. Smartphone-based applications can help improve patient compliance.</p>","PeriodicalId":50790,"journal":{"name":"Angle Orthodontist","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10575646/pdf/i1945-7103-93-5-538.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Angle Orthodontist","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2319/082222-595.1","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Objectives: To compare efficacy of aloe vera and probiotic mouthwashes vs fluoride mouthwash on Streptococcus mutans (S. mutans) in the plaque of orthodontic patients and to assess patient-reported outcomes and compliance.

Materials and methods: This prospective randomized clinical trial included 90 patients aged 12-35 years and in permanent dentition, who were randomly allocated in a 1:1:1 ratio to three mouthwash groups: aloe vera, probiotic, or fluoride. Smartphone-based applications were used to improve patient compliance. The primary outcome was the change in S. mutans levels in plaque between two times: pre-intervention and after 30 days using real-time polymerase chain reaction (Q-PCR). Secondary outcomes were the evaluation of patient-reported outcomes and compliance.

Results: Mean differences between aloe vera vs probiotic: -0.53 (95% CI: -3.57 to 2.51), aloe vera vs fluoride: -1.99 (95% CI, -4.8 to 0.82), and probiotic vs fluoride: -1.46 (95% CI: -4.74 to 1.82) were not significant, P = .467. Intragroup comparison demonstrated a significant mean difference in all three groups of -0.67 (95% CI: -0.79 to -0.55), -1.27 (95% CI: -1.57 to -0.97), and -2.23 (95% CI: -2.44 to -2.00) respectively, P < .001. Adherence was above 95% in all groups. No significant differences in frequency of responses to patient-reported outcomes were found among groups.

Conclusions: No significant difference in efficacy among the three mouthwashes in reducing S. mutans level in plaque was found. Patient-reported assessments concerning burning sensation, taste, and tooth staining found no significant differences among mouthwashes. Smartphone-based applications can help improve patient compliance.

芦荟和益生菌漱口水与含氟漱口水对正畸患者托槽周围牙菌斑中变形链球菌的疗效:一项随机临床试验。
目的:比较芦荟和益生菌漱口水与含氟漱口水对正畸患者牙菌斑中变形链球菌(S.mutans)的疗效,并评估患者报告的结果和依从性。材料和方法:这项前瞻性随机临床试验包括90名年龄在12-35岁的恒牙列患者,他们以1:1:1的比例被随机分配到三组漱口水中:芦荟、益生菌或氟化物。基于智能手机的应用程序被用于提高患者的依从性。主要结果是使用实时聚合酶链式反应(Q-PCR)在干预前和30天后两次之间斑块中变异链球菌水平的变化。次要结果是评估患者报告的结果和依从性。结果:芦荟与益生菌的平均差异:-0.53(95%CI:3.57至2.51),芦荟与氟化物的平均差异为-1.99(95%CI:4.8至0.82),益生菌与氟化物的差异为-1.46(95%CI:4.74至1.82),P=.467。组内比较显示,所有三组的平均值差异显著,分别为-0.67(95%可信区间:-0.79至-0.55)、-1.27(95%置信区间:-1.57至-0.97)和-2.23(95%置信度:-2.44至-2.00),P<0.001。所有组的依从性均在95%以上。各组对患者报告结果的反应频率没有发现显著差异。结论:三种漱口水在降低牙菌斑中变异链球菌水平方面的疗效无显著差异。患者报告的关于烧灼感、味觉和牙齿染色的评估发现,漱口水之间没有显著差异。基于智能手机的应用程序可以帮助提高患者的依从性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Angle Orthodontist
Angle Orthodontist 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
6.40
自引率
5.90%
发文量
95
审稿时长
3 months
期刊介绍: The Angle Orthodontist is the official publication of the Edward H. Angle Society of Orthodontists and is published bimonthly in January, March, May, July, September and November by The EH Angle Education and Research Foundation Inc. The Angle Orthodontist is the only major journal in orthodontics with a non-commercial, non-profit publisher -- The E. H. Angle Education and Research Foundation. We value our freedom to operate exclusively in the best interests of our readers and authors. Our website www.angle.org is completely free and open to all visitors.
文献相关原料
公司名称 产品信息 采购帮参考价格
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信