Summary of findings 2. Summary of findings ‐ Personalised one‐to‐one OHA versus routine one‐to‐one OHA.
| Personalised 1‐to‐1 OHA versus routine 1‐to‐1 OHA in a dental setting for oral heath | |||
|
Patient or population: children or adults Settings: dental surgery/office setting Intervention: personalised 1‐to‐1 OHA in a dental setting Comparison: routine 1‐to‐1 OHA in a dental setting | |||
| Outcomes | Number of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments |
| Periodontal health: gingivitis |
2209 participants (4 studies); follow‐up: 1635 participants | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1 | 1 large study in adults showed little or no difference between groups at 36 months 1 study in adults showed evidence of a benefit for personalised OHA at 3 months and 12 months 1 study in children reported "statistically significant (P < 0.05) improvement" for personalised OHA but did not report usable data 1 study showed little or no difference between groups at 3 months |
| Periodontal health: plaque levels |
332 participants (3 studies); follow‐up: 308 participants | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low2 | 1 study in adults showed evidence of a benefit for personalised OHA at 3 months and 12 months 1 study in children reported "statistically significant (P < 0.05) improvement" for personalised OHA but did not report usable data 1 study showed little or no difference between groups at 3 months |
| Dental caries | 69 participants (1 study); follow‐ up: 69 participants | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low3 | 1 study in children between the ages of 1 year and 6 years old reported "statistically significant (P < 0.05) improvement" for personalised OHA but did not report usable data |
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect Moderate quality: further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate Low quality: further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate Very low quality: we are very uncertain about the estimate | |||
14 unclear risk of bias studies. Inconsistency between studies, unable to pool data. Setting of 3 studies is secondary care, and intervention in 1 study (number of appointments and/or intensity required) is not applicable to routine dental practice. Downgraded for risk of bias, inconsistency and indirectness. 23 unclear risk of bias studies. Inconsistency between studies, unable to pool data. Setting of 3 studies is secondary care, and intervention in 1 study (number of appointments and/or intensity required) is not applicable to routine dental practice. Downgraded for risk of bias, inconsistency and indirectness. 31 unclear risk of bias study. No usable data. Setting not applicable to routine dental practice, so downgraded for indirectness.