12
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Comparing the effectiveness of water flosser and dental floss in plaque reduction among adults: A systematic review

      review-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Introduction:

          Interdental aids such as dental floss and water flossers have been found to be effective in removing interdental plaque. This systematic review aimed to compare the available data on the efficacy of dental floss and water flossers in plaque removal among adults.

          Materials and Methods:

          Five databases: PubMed, Scopus, Cochrane, ScienceDirect, Lilac, and Google Scholar were searched from January 1, 2002, to October 31, 2022, to obtain the relevant articles. Based on the search strategy, the titles of the studies were screened independently by two reviewers. Randomized controlled trials were included in the review, in which the study participants were given either dental floss or water flosser. Reduction in plaque scores was the outcome that was assessed. Seven articles met the eligibility criteria and were further processed for qualitative analysis.

          Results:

          The majority of the studies favored water flossers over dental floss in plaque reduction. Water flosser was also found to be effective in removing plaque from inaccessible interproximal areas of the tooth surfaces as compared to dental floss.

          Conclusion:

          Based on the scope of this review, results suggest that water flossers can be used as an effective alternative to dental floss in patients with manual dexterity, patients undergoing orthodontic treatment, and patients with dental prostheses.

          Related collections

          Most cited references38

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation.

          Protocols of systematic reviews and meta-analyses allow for planning and documentation of review methods, act as a guard against arbitrary decision making during review conduct, enable readers to assess for the presence of selective reporting against completed reviews, and, when made publicly available, reduce duplication of efforts and potentially prompt collaboration. Evidence documenting the existence of selective reporting and excessive duplication of reviews on the same or similar topics is accumulating and many calls have been made in support of the documentation and public availability of review protocols. Several efforts have emerged in recent years to rectify these problems, including development of an international register for prospective reviews (PROSPERO) and launch of the first open access journal dedicated to the exclusive publication of systematic review products, including protocols (BioMed Central's Systematic Reviews). Furthering these efforts and building on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) guidelines, an international group of experts has created a guideline to improve the transparency, accuracy, completeness, and frequency of documented systematic review and meta-analysis protocols--PRISMA-P (for protocols) 2015. The PRISMA-P checklist contains 17 items considered to be essential and minimum components of a systematic review or meta-analysis protocol.This PRISMA-P 2015 Explanation and Elaboration paper provides readers with a full understanding of and evidence about the necessity of each item as well as a model example from an existing published protocol. This paper should be read together with the PRISMA-P 2015 statement. Systematic review authors and assessors are strongly encouraged to make use of PRISMA-P when drafting and appraising review protocols. © BMJ Publishing Group Ltd 2014.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Systematic review of the Hawthorne effect: New concepts are needed to study research participation effects☆

            Objectives This study aims to (1) elucidate whether the Hawthorne effect exists, (2) explore under what conditions, and (3) estimate the size of any such effect. Study Design and Setting This systematic review summarizes and evaluates the strength of available evidence on the Hawthorne effect. An inclusive definition of any form of research artifact on behavior using this label, and without cointerventions, was adopted. Results Nineteen purposively designed studies were included, providing quantitative data on the size of the effect in eight randomized controlled trials, five quasiexperimental studies, and six observational evaluations of reporting on one's behavior by answering questions or being directly observed and being aware of being studied. Although all but one study was undertaken within health sciences, study methods, contexts, and findings were highly heterogeneous. Most studies reported some evidence of an effect, although significant biases are judged likely because of the complexity of the evaluation object. Conclusion Consequences of research participation for behaviors being investigated do exist, although little can be securely known about the conditions under which they operate, their mechanisms of effects, or their magnitudes. New concepts are needed to guide empirical studies.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The revised JBI critical appraisal tool for the assessment of risk of bias for randomized controlled trials.

              JBI recently began the process of updating and revising its suite of critical appraisal tools to ensure that these tools remain compatible with recent developments within risk of bias science. Following a rigorous development process led by the JBI Effectiveness Methodology Group, this paper presents the revised critical appraisal tool for the assessment of risk of bias for randomized controlled trials. This paper also presents practical guidance on how the questions of this tool are to be interpreted and applied by systematic reviewers, while providing topical examples. We also discuss the major changes made to this tool compared to the previous version and justification for why these changes facilitate best-practice methodologies in this field.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Indian Soc Periodontol
                J Indian Soc Periodontol
                JISP
                J Indian Soc Periodontol
                Journal of Indian Society of Periodontology
                Wolters Kluwer - Medknow (India )
                0972-124X
                0975-1580
                Nov-Dec 2023
                24 January 2024
                : 27
                : 6
                : 559-567
                Affiliations
                [1] Department of Public Health Dentistry, Dr. D.Y. Patil Dental College and Hospital, Dr. D.Y. Patil Vidyapeeth, Pune, Maharashtra, India
                [1 ] Department of Oral Pathology and Microbiology, Dr. D.Y. Patil Dental College and Hospital, Dr. D.Y. Patil Vidyapeeth, Pune, Maharashtra, India
                Author notes

                The work belongs to the Department of Public Health Dentistry, Dr. D. Y. Patil Dental College and Hospital, Dr. D. Y. Patil Vidyapeeth, Pune, India

                Address for correspondence: Dr. Ladusingh Rajpurohit, Department of Public Health Dentistry, Dr. D.Y. Patil Dental College and Hospital, Dr. D.Y. Patil Vidyapeeth, Pimpri, Pune - 411 018, Maharashtra, India. E-mail: ladusinghr1@ 123456gmail.com
                Article
                JISP-27-559
                10.4103/jisp.jisp_597_22
                10906797
                38434511
                083f2d46-548a-4c55-8b4a-4f19043091ce
                Copyright: © 2024 Indian Society of Periodontology

                This is an open access journal, and articles are distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 License, which allows others to remix, tweak, and build upon the work non-commercially, as long as appropriate credit is given and the new creations are licensed under the identical terms.

                History
                : 30 December 2022
                : 09 November 2023
                : 17 November 2023
                Categories
                Review Article

                Dentistry
                adult,dental devices,dental plaque
                Dentistry
                adult, dental devices, dental plaque

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                3
                0
                2
                0
                Smart Citations
                3
                0
                2
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content735

                Most referenced authors1,289