防腐剂和化学力学方法治疗牙本质龋齿的疗效:用GRADE方法进行系统评价。

Luiza de Almeida Queiroz Ferreira, Ivana Márcia Alves Diniz, Rogéli Tibúrcio Ribeiro da Cunha Peixoto, Natália Aparecida Gomes, Camila de Sousa Caneschi, Loukia Maria Spineli, Carolina Castro Martins
{"title":"防腐剂和化学力学方法治疗牙本质龋齿的疗效:用GRADE方法进行系统评价。","authors":"Luiza de Almeida Queiroz Ferreira,&nbsp;Ivana Márcia Alves Diniz,&nbsp;Rogéli Tibúrcio Ribeiro da Cunha Peixoto,&nbsp;Natália Aparecida Gomes,&nbsp;Camila de Sousa Caneschi,&nbsp;Loukia Maria Spineli,&nbsp;Carolina Castro Martins","doi":"10.3389/froh.2023.1110634","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Selective caries removal aims to remove carious tissue in deep dentin lesions. However, a discussion stands on the value of antiseptics and chemomechanical adjuvant methods to reduce the bacterial load on residual caries lesions. This systematic review has addressed two main clinical questions to compare the antimicrobial efficacy of available methods using (1) antiseptic or (2) chemomechanical agents before restoring dentin carious lesions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We included randomized and non-randomized controlled trials (RCTs/ NRCTs). We searched eight databases from inception to October 2021. Paired reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. The primary outcome was the reduction in the number of total bacterial in dentin, whereas secondary outcomes were reduction in the number of <i>Lactobacillus</i> and <i>Streptococcus</i>. We used the ratio of ratio of post-treatment to baseline means between two interventions in the logarithmic scale as a proper effect measure. Certainty of evidence was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 14 RCTs and 9 NRCTs, with nine interventions. Regardless the method, the number of bacteria at baseline was similar or exceeded that after the intervention, particularly in NRCTs. The evidence was inconclusive for most comparisons. Among antiseptic agents, chlorhexidine (CHX) resulted in an average of 1.14 times [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.08-1.21] more total bacterial than photodynamic therapy in RCTs. Among NRCTS, the natural agents resulted in five times more total bacterial than CHX (95% CI: 2-11). For chemomechanical methods, the control resulted in eight times (95% CI: 4-17) more total bacterial than Carisolv (SHAA).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The certainty of the evidence was very low for all comparisons showing uncertainty whether one treatment could be more effective than another for dentin disinfection. So far, exclusively removing soft carious dentin would be enough to reduce the bacterial count.</p>","PeriodicalId":12463,"journal":{"name":"Frontiers in Oral Health","volume":"4 ","pages":"1110634"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9992646/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Efficacy of antiseptics and chemomechanical methods for dentin caries lesions: A systematic review with GRADE approach.\",\"authors\":\"Luiza de Almeida Queiroz Ferreira,&nbsp;Ivana Márcia Alves Diniz,&nbsp;Rogéli Tibúrcio Ribeiro da Cunha Peixoto,&nbsp;Natália Aparecida Gomes,&nbsp;Camila de Sousa Caneschi,&nbsp;Loukia Maria Spineli,&nbsp;Carolina Castro Martins\",\"doi\":\"10.3389/froh.2023.1110634\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Selective caries removal aims to remove carious tissue in deep dentin lesions. However, a discussion stands on the value of antiseptics and chemomechanical adjuvant methods to reduce the bacterial load on residual caries lesions. This systematic review has addressed two main clinical questions to compare the antimicrobial efficacy of available methods using (1) antiseptic or (2) chemomechanical agents before restoring dentin carious lesions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We included randomized and non-randomized controlled trials (RCTs/ NRCTs). We searched eight databases from inception to October 2021. Paired reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. The primary outcome was the reduction in the number of total bacterial in dentin, whereas secondary outcomes were reduction in the number of <i>Lactobacillus</i> and <i>Streptococcus</i>. We used the ratio of ratio of post-treatment to baseline means between two interventions in the logarithmic scale as a proper effect measure. Certainty of evidence was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 14 RCTs and 9 NRCTs, with nine interventions. Regardless the method, the number of bacteria at baseline was similar or exceeded that after the intervention, particularly in NRCTs. The evidence was inconclusive for most comparisons. Among antiseptic agents, chlorhexidine (CHX) resulted in an average of 1.14 times [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.08-1.21] more total bacterial than photodynamic therapy in RCTs. Among NRCTS, the natural agents resulted in five times more total bacterial than CHX (95% CI: 2-11). For chemomechanical methods, the control resulted in eight times (95% CI: 4-17) more total bacterial than Carisolv (SHAA).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The certainty of the evidence was very low for all comparisons showing uncertainty whether one treatment could be more effective than another for dentin disinfection. So far, exclusively removing soft carious dentin would be enough to reduce the bacterial count.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12463,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Frontiers in Oral Health\",\"volume\":\"4 \",\"pages\":\"1110634\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9992646/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Frontiers in Oral Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3389/froh.2023.1110634\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Frontiers in Oral Health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/froh.2023.1110634","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:选择性除龋术的目的是去除牙本质深部病变的龋组织。然而,关于防腐剂和化学机械辅助方法在减少残余龋损细菌负荷方面的价值的讨论。本系统综述解决了两个主要的临床问题,以比较(1)抗菌剂或(2)化学力学剂在修复牙本质龋齿损伤前的抗菌效果。方法:纳入随机对照试验和非随机对照试验(rct / NRCTs)。从成立到2021年10月,我们检索了8个数据库。配对审稿人独立筛选研究、提取数据并评估偏倚风险。主要结果是牙本质中细菌总数的减少,而次要结果是乳酸菌和链球菌数量的减少。我们在对数量表中使用两种干预措施之间的治疗后与基线均值之比作为适当的效果度量。采用建议分级、评估、发展和评价方法评估证据的确定性。结果:我们纳入14项随机对照试验和9项非随机对照试验,共9项干预措施。无论采用何种方法,基线时的细菌数量与干预后相似或超过,特别是在nrct中。大多数比较的证据都是不确定的。在随机对照试验中,氯己定(CHX)导致的细菌总数比光动力治疗平均多1.14倍[95%可信区间(CI): 1.08-1.21]。在NRCTS中,天然药物导致的细菌总数是CHX的5倍(95% CI: 2-11)。在化学力学方法中,对照组的细菌总数是Carisolv (SHAA)的8倍(95% CI: 4-17)。结论:所有比较证据的确定性都很低,表明不确定一种治疗方法是否比另一种治疗方法对牙本质消毒更有效。到目前为止,仅去除软牙本质就足以减少细菌数量。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Efficacy of antiseptics and chemomechanical methods for dentin caries lesions: A systematic review with GRADE approach.

Efficacy of antiseptics and chemomechanical methods for dentin caries lesions: A systematic review with GRADE approach.

Efficacy of antiseptics and chemomechanical methods for dentin caries lesions: A systematic review with GRADE approach.

Efficacy of antiseptics and chemomechanical methods for dentin caries lesions: A systematic review with GRADE approach.

Objectives: Selective caries removal aims to remove carious tissue in deep dentin lesions. However, a discussion stands on the value of antiseptics and chemomechanical adjuvant methods to reduce the bacterial load on residual caries lesions. This systematic review has addressed two main clinical questions to compare the antimicrobial efficacy of available methods using (1) antiseptic or (2) chemomechanical agents before restoring dentin carious lesions.

Methods: We included randomized and non-randomized controlled trials (RCTs/ NRCTs). We searched eight databases from inception to October 2021. Paired reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias. The primary outcome was the reduction in the number of total bacterial in dentin, whereas secondary outcomes were reduction in the number of Lactobacillus and Streptococcus. We used the ratio of ratio of post-treatment to baseline means between two interventions in the logarithmic scale as a proper effect measure. Certainty of evidence was assessed with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.

Results: We included 14 RCTs and 9 NRCTs, with nine interventions. Regardless the method, the number of bacteria at baseline was similar or exceeded that after the intervention, particularly in NRCTs. The evidence was inconclusive for most comparisons. Among antiseptic agents, chlorhexidine (CHX) resulted in an average of 1.14 times [95% confidence interval (CI): 1.08-1.21] more total bacterial than photodynamic therapy in RCTs. Among NRCTS, the natural agents resulted in five times more total bacterial than CHX (95% CI: 2-11). For chemomechanical methods, the control resulted in eight times (95% CI: 4-17) more total bacterial than Carisolv (SHAA).

Conclusions: The certainty of the evidence was very low for all comparisons showing uncertainty whether one treatment could be more effective than another for dentin disinfection. So far, exclusively removing soft carious dentin would be enough to reduce the bacterial count.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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