The efficacy of 0.12% chlorhexidine mouthrinse compared with 0.2% on plaque accumulation and periodontal parameters: a systematic review
The efficacy of 0.12% chlorhexidine mouthrinse compared with 0.2% on plaque accumulation and periodontal parameters: a systematic review
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/j.1600-051x.2010.01575.x
复制
发表时间：
2010-09-01
影响因子：
6.7
通讯作者：
Van der Weijden, G. A.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Berchier, C. E.;Slot, D. E.;Van der Weijden, G. A.
这项系统性综述的目的是评价0.12%洗必泰含漱剂与0.2%洗必泰含漱剂对牙菌斑和牙周参数的影响。材料和方法通过MEDLINE-PubMed和Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials检索(随机)临床试验和队列研究。菌斑评分、牙周炎症参数和牙周附着丧失被选为主要结果参数。结果对409篇标题和摘要进行筛选，确定了8篇符合条件的出版物。对使用相同斑块指数的7项研究进行的荟萃分析显示，0.2%和0.12%的CHX之间存在显著差异(p=0.008)。根据Quigley&Hein斑块指数(1968)计算的斑块加权平均差值为0.10(95%CI[0.03-0.17])(异质性I2=0%，p=0.87)。三项研究比较了0.12%和0.2%的CHX Mouthrinse产品，提供了有关牙周炎的数据。在这些研究中，两种浓度对牙周炎的影响没有发现差异。结论与0.12%和0.2%CHX相比，有关CHX对牙周炎症影响的研究很少，也没有研究比较两种CHX浓度，评价探测袋深度和/或牙周附着水平。在斑块抑制方面，0.2%的CHX浓度显示出微小但显著的差异。然而，这种差异的临床相关性可能可以忽略不计。
P>ObjectivesThe aim of this systematic review was to evaluate the effects of 0.12% chlorhexidine (CHX) mouthrinse compared with 0.2% on plaque and periodontal parameters.Materials and methodsMEDLINE-PubMed and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for (randomized) clinical trials and cohort studies. Plaque scores, parameters of periodontal inflammation and periodontal attachment loss were selected as primary outcome parameters.ResultsScreening of 409 titles and abstracts identified eight eligible publications. A meta-analysis of seven studies using the same plaque index showed a significant difference between 0.2% and 0.12% CHX (p=0.008). The Weighted Mean Difference for plaque based on the Quigley & Hein Plaque Index (1968) was 0.10 (95%CI [0.03-0.17]) (heterogeneity I2=0%, p=0.87). Three studies that compared 0.12% and 0.2% CHX mouthrinse products provided data on gingival inflammation. No difference in the effect of gingivitis between the two concentrations was found in these studies. No studies could be found that compared the two CHX concentrations and evaluated the probing pocket depth and/or the periodontal attachment level.ConclusionsIn comparing 0.12% and 0.2% CHX, information concerning the effect on gingival inflammation was sparse and no studies could be found that compared the two CHX concentrations and evaluated the probing pocket depth and/or the periodontal attachment level. With respect to plaque inhibition, the results showed a small but significant difference in favour of the 0.2% CHX concentration. However, the clinical relevance of this difference is probably negligible.