Comparison of Oral Hygiene and Gingival Outcomes in Children With Special Care Needs Using Powered or Manual Toothbrushes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

IF 0.9 Q3 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE

Special Care in Dentistry Pub Date : 2025-01-01 DOI:10.1111/scd.70000

Anam A Shaikh, Ashwin M Jawdekar, Tanvi A Saraf

{"title":"Comparison of Oral Hygiene and Gingival Outcomes in Children With Special Care Needs Using Powered or Manual Toothbrushes: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.","authors":"Anam A Shaikh, Ashwin M Jawdekar, Tanvi A Saraf","doi":"10.1111/scd.70000","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Aim: This systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA) compares oral hygiene and gingival outcomes in children with special care needs (CSCNs) using powered or manual toothbrushes.Material and methods: Two authors searched articles using PubMed and Cochrane library; the search was extended to other databases to include publications until July 2024. RCTs available in English were included. Oral hygiene and gingival outcomes in CSCNs, using powered or manual toothbrushes were: plaque index (PI), Quigley Hein plaque index (QHPI), gingival index (GI), and oral hygiene index simplified (OHI-S). ROB and publication bias was assessed using Cochrane tool and funnel plots, respectively. Meta-analyses were performed using forest plots. GRADE was used for the quality.Results: Twelve studies were included in SR and 11 studies in MA. In relation to GI and in the subgroup analysis of QHPI, powered toothbrushing was superior to manual toothbrushing with SMD -0.681 [95% CI (-0.911 to -0.451)] and SMD -0.85 [95% CI (-1.166 to -0.53)], respectively using REM. Comparisons with other indices exhibited no significant differences. The ROB and publication bias were moderate, quality of evidence was low to moderate GRADE.Conclusion: Powered toothbrushes had favorable outcomes in a few but not all parameters. The overall quality of evidence is low.Prospero registration id: CRD42024579260.","PeriodicalId":47470,"journal":{"name":"Special Care in Dentistry","volume":"45 1","pages":"e70000"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Special Care in Dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/scd.70000","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Aim: This systematic review and meta-analysis (SRMA) compares oral hygiene and gingival outcomes in children with special care needs (CSCNs) using powered or manual toothbrushes.

Material and methods: Two authors searched articles using PubMed and Cochrane library; the search was extended to other databases to include publications until July 2024. RCTs available in English were included. Oral hygiene and gingival outcomes in CSCNs, using powered or manual toothbrushes were: plaque index (PI), Quigley Hein plaque index (QHPI), gingival index (GI), and oral hygiene index simplified (OHI-S). ROB and publication bias was assessed using Cochrane tool and funnel plots, respectively. Meta-analyses were performed using forest plots. GRADE was used for the quality.

Results: Twelve studies were included in SR and 11 studies in MA. In relation to GI and in the subgroup analysis of QHPI, powered toothbrushing was superior to manual toothbrushing with SMD -0.681 [95% CI (-0.911 to -0.451)] and SMD -0.85 [95% CI (-1.166 to -0.53)], respectively using REM. Comparisons with other indices exhibited no significant differences. The ROB and publication bias were moderate, quality of evidence was low to moderate GRADE.

Conclusion: Powered toothbrushes had favorable outcomes in a few but not all parameters. The overall quality of evidence is low.

Prospero registration id: CRD42024579260.

查看原文本刊更多论文

有特殊护理需要的儿童使用电动牙刷或手动牙刷的口腔卫生和牙龈结局的比较：随机对照试验的系统评价和荟萃分析。

目的：本系统综述和荟萃分析（SRMA）比较了有特殊护理需要的儿童（CSCNs）使用电动牙刷和手动牙刷的口腔卫生和牙龈结果。材料和方法：两位作者通过PubMed和Cochrane图书馆检索文章；搜索扩展到其他数据库，包括2024年7月之前的出版物。纳入可用的英文随机对照试验。cscn使用电动牙刷或手动牙刷的口腔卫生和牙龈结果为：牙菌斑指数（PI）、Quigley Hein牙菌斑指数（QHPI）、牙龈指数（GI）和简化口腔卫生指数（OHI-S）。ROB和发表偏倚分别采用Cochrane工具和漏斗图进行评估。采用森林样地进行meta分析。质量用GRADE表示。结果：SR组纳入12项研究，MA组纳入11项研究。与GI相关，在QHPI亚组分析中，以REM计算的SMD值分别为-0.681 [95% CI(-0.911 ~ -0.451)]和-0.85 [95% CI(-1.166 ~ -0.53)]，电动刷牙优于手动刷牙，与其他指标比较无显著差异。ROB和发表偏倚为中等，证据质量为低至中等GRADE。结论：电动牙刷在部分指标上效果良好，但并非全部。证据的整体质量较低。普洛斯彼罗注册id: CRD42024579260。

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

Special Care in Dentistry DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE-

CiteScore

2.40

自引率

14.30%

发文量

120

期刊介绍： Special Care in Dentistry is the official journal of the Special Care Dentistry Association, the American Association of Hospital Dentists, the Academy of Dentistry for Persons with Disabilities, and the American Society for Geriatric Dentistry. It is the only journal published in North America devoted to improving oral health in people with special needs.