Uptake and release of fluoride from fluoride-impregnated chewing sticks (miswaks) in vitro and in vivo

Home use of interdental cleaning devices, in addition to toothbrushing, for preventing and controlling periodontal diseases and dental caries

BACKGROUND

Dental caries (tooth decay) and periodontal diseases (gingivitis and periodontitis) affect the majority of people worldwide, and treatment costs place a significant burden on health services. Decay and gum disease can cause pain, eating and speaking difficulties, low self-esteem, and even tooth loss and the need for surgery. As dental plaque is the primary cause, self-administered daily mechanical disruption and removal of plaque is important for oral health. Toothbrushing can remove supragingival plaque on the facial and lingual/palatal surfaces, but special devices (such as floss, brushes, sticks, and irrigators) are often recommended to reach into the interdental area.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effectiveness of interdental cleaning devices used at home, in addition to toothbrushing, compared with toothbrushing alone, for preventing and controlling periodontal diseases, caries, and plaque. A secondary objective was to compare different interdental cleaning devices with each other.

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 16 January 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2018, Issue 12), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 16 January 2019), Embase Ovid (1980 to 16 January 2019) and CINAHL EBSCO (1937 to 16 January 2019). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared toothbrushing and a home-use interdental cleaning device versus toothbrushing alone or with another device (minimum duration four weeks).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

At least two review authors independently screened searches, selected studies, extracted data, assessed studies' risk of bias, and assessed evidence certainty as high, moderate, low or very low, according to GRADE. We extracted indices measured on interproximal surfaces, where possible. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses, using mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs).

MAIN RESULTS

We included 35 RCTs (3929 randomised adult participants). Studies were at high risk of performance bias as blinding of participants was not possible. Only two studies were otherwise at low risk of bias. Many participants had a low level of baseline gingival inflammation.Studies evaluated the following devices plus toothbrushing versus toothbrushing: floss (15 trials), interdental brushes (2 trials), wooden cleaning sticks (2 trials), rubber/elastomeric cleaning sticks (2 trials), oral irrigators (5 trials). Four devices were compared with floss: interdental brushes (9 trials), wooden cleaning sticks (3 trials), rubber/elastomeric cleaning sticks (9 trials) and oral irrigators (2 trials). Another comparison was rubber/elastomeric cleaning sticks versus interdental brushes (3 trials).No trials assessed interproximal caries, and most did not assess periodontitis. Gingivitis was measured by indices (most commonly, Löe-Silness, 0 to 3 scale) and by proportion of bleeding sites. Plaque was measured by indices, most often Quigley-Hein (0 to 5).

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE

comparisons against toothbrushing aloneLow-certainty evidence suggested that flossing, in addition to toothbrushing, may reduce gingivitis (measured by gingival index (GI)) at one month (SMD -0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.12 to -0.04; 8 trials, 585 participants), three months or six months. The results for proportion of bleeding sites and plaque were inconsistent (very low-certainty evidence).Very low-certainty evidence suggested that using an interdental brush, plus toothbrushing, may reduce gingivitis (measured by GI) at one month (MD -0.53, 95% CI -0.83 to -0.23; 1 trial, 62 participants), though there was no clear difference in bleeding sites (MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.03; 1 trial, 31 participants). Low-certainty evidence suggested interdental brushes may reduce plaque more than toothbrushing alone (SMD -1.07, 95% CI -1.51 to -0.63; 2 trials, 93 participants).Very low-certainty evidence suggested that using wooden cleaning sticks, plus toothbrushing, may reduce bleeding sites at three months (MD -0.25, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.13; 1 trial, 24 participants), but not plaque (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.07).Very low-certainty evidence suggested that using rubber/elastomeric interdental cleaning sticks, plus toothbrushing, may reduce plaque at one month (MD -0.22, 95% CI -0.41 to -0.03), but this was not found for gingivitis (GI MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.21; 1 trial, 12 participants; bleeding MD 0.07, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.01; 1 trial, 30 participants).Very-low certainty evidence suggested oral irrigators may reduce gingivitis measured by GI at one month (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.06; 4 trials, 380 participants), but not at three or six months. Low-certainty evidence suggested that oral irrigators did not reduce bleeding sites at one month (MD -0.00, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.06; 2 trials, 126 participants) or three months, or plaque at one month (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.10; 3 trials, 235 participants), three months or six months, more than toothbrushing alone.

SECONDARY OBJECTIVE

comparisons between devicesLow-certainty evidence suggested interdental brushes may reduce gingivitis more than floss at one and three months, but did not show a difference for periodontitis measured by probing pocket depth. Evidence for plaque was inconsistent.Low- to very low-certainty evidence suggested oral irrigation may reduce gingivitis at one month compared to flossing, but very low-certainty evidence did not suggest a difference between devices for plaque.Very low-certainty evidence for interdental brushes or flossing versus interdental cleaning sticks did not demonstrate superiority of either intervention.Adverse eventsStudies that measured adverse events found no severe events caused by devices, and no evidence of differences between study groups in minor effects such as gingival irritation.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Using floss or interdental brushes in addition to toothbrushing may reduce gingivitis or plaque, or both, more than toothbrushing alone. Interdental brushes may be more effective than floss. Available evidence for tooth cleaning sticks and oral irrigators is limited and inconsistent. Outcomes were mostly measured in the short term and participants in most studies had a low level of baseline gingival inflammation. Overall, the evidence was low to very low-certainty, and the effect sizes observed may not be clinically important. Future trials should report participant periodontal status according to the new periodontal diseases classification, and last long enough to measure interproximal caries and periodontitis.

Comparison of Fluoridated Miswak and Toothbrushing with Fluoridated Toothpaste on Plaque Removal and Fluoride Release

INTRODUCTION

Dental caries and periodontal diseases are all induced by oral biofilm (dental plaque). This study was conducted to evaluate if fluoride-impregnated miswak is as effective in plaque removal and fluoride release as toothbrushing with fluoride toothpaste.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This single-blind, randomized, crossover study was conducted at the Department of Cariology, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden, from February 2010 to January 2011. Fifteen healthy subjects participated in this study. The participants were instructed to use the following: (1) 0.5% NaF-impregnated miswak, (2) nonfluoridated miswak, (3) toothbrush with nonfluoride toothpaste, and (4) toothbrush with 1450 ppm fluoride toothpaste. Each method was used twice a day for 1 week after which plaque amount and fluoride concentration in resting saliva were measured. There was a 1-week washout period between each method.

RESULTS

No significant difference between miswak and tooth-brushing was found regarding plaque removal on buccal and lingual surfaces. A somewhat higher fluoride concentration in resting saliva was found after using impregnated miswak when compared with toothbrushing with fluoride toothpaste (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

Miswak and toothbrushing showed the same plaque removing effect on buccal and lingual surfaces. Miswak impregnated with 0.5% NaF resulted in a higher concentration of fluoride in saliva than brushing with 1450 ppm fluoride toothpaste.

CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE

Miswak impregnated with 0.5% NaF and toothbrushing results in comparable plaque removal and about the same fluoride concentration in saliva even it was somewhat higher for impregnated miswak.

Efficacy of miswak on oral pathogens

The oral cavity harbors a diverse and abundant number of complex oral pathogens causing different oral diseases. The development of dental caries and periodontal diseases has been found to be closely associated with various gram positive and gram negative microrganisms. Miswak, a natural toothbrush, has been documented as a potent antibacterial aid and its use is encouraged in different countries because of its good taste, texture, availability, cost and beneficial effect on teeth and supporting tissues. Different researches have been carried out to evaluate the antimicrobial effects of Miswak. This review encompasses the efficacy of Miswak on suppression of oral pathogens with respect to conducted on fungi as well as cariogenic, periodontal and endodontic bacteria.

Salvadora persica

Salvadora persica (kharijal) is a large, well-branched, and evergreen shrub or a tree resembling Salvadora oleoides (meethijal) found in the dry and arid regions of India. Chewing sticks have been used for centuries for tooth cleaning, and are recommended by the World Health Organization in areas where their use is customary. Salvadora persica has enormous reported activities. It has potential medicinal and research activities. Salvadora persica is a promising product and is useful to produce antiplaque, analgesic, anticonvulsant, antibacterial, antimycotic, cytotoxic, antifertility, deobstruent, carminative, diuretic, astringent, and also used in biliousness, and rheumatism. This review highlights the pharmacologic effects and therapeutic effects of Salvadora persica. The chemical constituents present in different parts of the plant are also discussed.

Oral fluoride retention in orthodontic patients with and without fixed appliances after using different fluoridated home-care products

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate oral fluoride (F) retention after using fluoridated toothpastes, rinsing solutions and chewing sticks (Miswaks) in orthodontic patients with and without orthodontic appliances.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Nine orthodontic patients, with a mean age of 16 years, were included in a randomized, cross-over, experimental study. Six different home-care F products, two NaF toothpastes (0.32% and 1.1%), two NaF mouthwash solutions (0.05% and 0.2%) and two NaF-impregnated Miswaks chewing sticks (0.05% and 0.5%), were used both during the orthodontic treatment and 1 week after debonding. Unstimulated whole saliva and approximal saliva were collected from two interdental sites, before and up to 60 min after using each product for 2 min. The retention of F was calculated as the area under the 60-min F-clearance curve (AUC).

RESULTS

In general, the F concentrations at the various sites were higher before than after debonding. Moreover, the products with a high F content (toothpaste, mouthwash and Miswaks) resulted in higher F retention than the corresponding products with a lower F content. In whole saliva, the highest AUC values were found in patients using 0.2% NaF mouthwash, followed by 1.1% NaF toothpaste (p < 0.05). In approximal saliva, the retention values were highest after using 0.5% NaF-impregnated Miswaks in patients wearing orthodontic appliances (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The insertion of fixed orthodontic appliances appears to favor oral F retention for all the tested home-care F products. In addition, products with a high F content increase oral F retention.