Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ Repositório Instituc...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
addClaim

Eficácia da remoção de placa bacteriana, qual a melhor escova? : revisão sistemática

Authors: Grilo, Gonçalo Rocha Marieiro Marques;

Eficácia da remoção de placa bacteriana, qual a melhor escova? : revisão sistemática

Abstract

Introdução: De acordo com a WHO, estima-se que as doenças orais afetem cerca de 3,5 mil milhões de pessoas globalmente, sendo que a presença de cárie em dentes permanentes é a condição mais comum, com 2,3 mil milhões de pessoas afetadas. Mais de 530 milhões de crianças têm lesões de cárie em dentes decíduos, cerca de metade da população pediátrica mundial. A doença cárie inflige uma elevada carga financeira para a sociedade, devido à sua enorme prevalência. O melhor tratamento é a prevenção e, sendo a escovagem o método principal de prevenção da cárie dentária, é importante utilizar uma escova adequada e eficaz na remoção da placa bacteriana. Objetivos: Agregar e analisar toda a informação existente na literatura que, comparando uma escova manual com uma escova elétrica, avalie a eficácia da remoção da placa bacteriana na população pediátrica, com o objetivo de adequar o melhor método de prevenção às necessidades do indivíduo e do progenitor/cuidador. Materiais e Métodos: Este estudo foi desenvolvido de acordo com as diretrizes atuais que integram as Guidelines e checklists PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses). Tendo por base a questão de investigação (PICO) e os objetivos definidos anteriormente, estabeleceram-se estratégias para a recolha de dados. “Quando comparada a escovagem (I), de uma escova manual com uma escova elétrica (C), qual é mais eficaz na remoção da placa bacteriana (O), na população pediátrica (P)?” Resultados: Através da pesquisa inicial, com os termos e equações de pesquisa, foram identificados 568 artigos, distribuídos da seguinte forma: 305 na PubMed/Medline, 152 na Cochrane Library e 111 na Sci-Elo. Destes, pelo processo de inclusão e exclusão, obtiveram-se 7 artigos eleitos para leitura integral e posterior análise. Conclusão: 6 artigos referem que a escovagem efetuada com escova elétrica é mais eficaz quando comparada com a escovagem manual. Esta afirmação abrange tanto a dentição decídua como a dentição mista, independentemente de quem efetua a escovagem.

Introduction: According to the WHO, oral diseases are estimated to affect 3.5 billion people globally, with caries in permanent teeth being the most common condition, with 2.3 billion people affected. More than 530 million children have caries lesions in deciduous teeth, about half of the world's pediatric population. Caries disease inflicts a high financial burden on society because of its enormous prevalence. The best treatment is prevention, and since brushing is the primary method of preventing dental caries, it is important to use an appropriate and effective toothbrush to remove plaque. Objectives: To gather and analyze all the information in the literature that, comparing a manual toothbrush with an electric toothbrush, assess the effectiveness of plaque removal in the pediatric population, with the purpose of adapting the best prevention method to the needs of the individual and the parent/caregiver. Materials and Methods: This study was developed according to the current PRISMA Guidelines and Checklists (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses). Based on the research question (PICO) and the objectives defined previously, strategies for data collection were established. "When comparing brushing (I), of a manual brush with an electric brush (C), which is more effective in removing plaque (O), in the pediatric population (P)?" Results: Through the initial search, with the search terms and equations, 568 articles were identified, distributed as follows: 305 in PubMed/Medline, 152 in Cochrane Library, and 111 in Sci-Elo. From these, by the process of inclusion and exclusion, 7 articles were selected for full reading. Conclusion: 6 articles stated that brushing with an electric toothbrush is more effective than manual brushing. This statement covers both the deciduous and mixed dentition, regardless of who performs the brushing.

Country
Portugal
Related Organizations
Keywords

Brushing, Domínio/Área Científica::Ciências Médicas::Outras Ciências Médicas, Electric brush, Revisão sistemática, Escova elétrica, Systematic review, Effectiveness, Escovagem, Eficácia, Escova manual, Manual brush

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    OpenAIRE UsageCounts
    Usage byUsageCounts
    visibility views 293
    download downloads 420
  • 293
    views
    420
    downloads
    Powered byOpenAIRE UsageCounts
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
visibility
download
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
views
OpenAIRE UsageCountsViews provided by UsageCounts
downloads
OpenAIRE UsageCountsDownloads provided by UsageCounts
0
Average
Average
Average
293
420
Green