A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Efficacy of Probiotics Compared to Chlorhexidine Mouthwash in Improving Periodontal Status: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. | LitMetric

Purpose: To critically evaluate the available literature and conduct a systematic review of recent randomized controlled trials to assess the effectiveness of probiotics compared to chlorhexidine mouthwash in enhancing periodontal health.

Methods: Five databases were searched electronically, as well as the gray literature. Using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized clinical trials, the risk of bias was examined. The weighted mean difference (WMD) method was used to calculate the effect sizes. Heterogeneity was assessed using and statistics. The GRADE approach was adopted to assess the certainty of the evidence. To assess the robustness of the findings, sensitivity analysis and publication bias assessment were undertaken.

Results: A total of 1850 studies were initially identified. Sixteen clinical trials were eligible for qualitative synthesis, and ten were included in the meta-analysis. In terms of the gingival index, in total, no statistically significant difference was observed between chlorhexidine and probiotics within 4 weeks (WMD -0.03, 95% CI: -0.09∼0.04,  = 0.3885). Similar to GI, no statistically significant difference was observed between chlorhexidine and probiotics regarding the plaque index within 4 weeks (WMD 0.11, 95% CI: -0.05∼0.28,  = 0.1726). No statistically significant difference was observed between chlorhexidine and probiotics in all time intervals regarding oral hygiene index-simplified (WMD -0.01, 95% CI: -0.05∼0.04,  = 0.7508). The robustness of these findings was confirmed by sensitivity analysis and publication bias assessments.

Conclusions: Based on the findings, probiotics were an acceptable alternative to conventional chlorhexidine in improving periodontal health. High-quality studies with rigorous methodology should be conducted to assess the optimum doses of probiotics for clinical implications.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9886484PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2023/4013004DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

statistically difference
12
difference observed
12
observed chlorhexidine
12
chlorhexidine probiotics
12
probiotics compared
8
compared chlorhexidine
8
chlorhexidine mouthwash
8
improving periodontal
8
systematic review
8
clinical trials
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!