Summary of findings 3. Summary of findings ‐ Self‐management versus professional OHA.
| Self‐management versus professional OHA in a dental setting for oral heath | |||
|
Patient or population: children or adults Settings: dental surgery/office setting Intervention: self‐management Comparison: professional OHA in a dental setting | |||
| Outcomes | Number of participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments |
| Periodontal health: gingivitis |
185 participants (4 studies); follow‐up: 181 participants | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1 | 1 study in adults reported "significant differences between groups at each observation were not found" but no usable data reported 1 study in adults reported "no statistically significant differences in gingival bleeding scores were found between the 2 treatment groups at any of the 3 examinations" but no usable data reported 1 study in adults showed little or no difference between groups at 3 months 1 study in adults with hyposalivation provided weak evidence of a benefit in gingivitis for professional OHA at 2 months |
| Periodontal health: plaque levels |
185 participants (4 studies); follow‐up: 181 participants | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low1 | 1 study in adults reported "mean plaque scores did not differ significantly between groups" but no usable data reported 1 study in adults reported "no statistically significant differences were found between the 2 groups at any of the examination times" but no usable data reported 1 study in adults provided weak evidence of a benefit in plaque reduction at 3 months for self‐management 1 study in adults with hyposalivation provided very weak evidence of a benefit in plaque reduction for professional OHA at 2 months |
| Dental caries | No studies were found that looked at dental caries | ||
| 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. 3 studies were in secondary care and 3 of the interventions of 3 trials (number of appointments and/or intensity required) are not applicable to routine dental practice therefore we also downgraded for indirectness.