Question · asked by 1 review
Gum chewing (sugar-free) vs No chewing gum: Plaque
- Population
- Adults and children (predominantly adults; one study in children), with natural dentition
- Intervention
- Gum chewing (sugar-free)
- Comparison
- No chewing gum
- Outcome
- Plaque
Sugar-free chewing gum significantly reduced plaque quantity versus no-gum/control (SMD -0.778, 95% CI -1.167 to -0.390), with high heterogeneity (I2 = 86.6%) and no GRADE rating (ungraded).
What each review found
Include earlier review versionsNo studies found 0 · 0%GRADE not reported 2 · 100%Very low 0 · 0%Low 0 · 0%Moderate 0 · 0%High 0 · 0%
| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Sugar-free chewing gum (any polyol: xylitol, sorbitol, or maltitol), chewed regularly vs No sugar-free gum / no chewing gum (or gum-base control); no chewing Plaque quantity (plaque index or plaque weight) · Adults and children (predominantly adults; one study in children), with natural dentition · End of study (last reported time point; study durations 4 days to 2 years), Community, residential care homes, and schools; predominantly adults Sugar-free chewing gum significantly reduced plaque quantity versus no-gum/control (SMD -0.778, 95% CI -1.167 to -0.390), with high heterogeneity (I2 = 86.6%) and no GRADE rating (ungraded). A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Role of Sugar-Free Chewing Gum on Plaque Quantity in the Oral… (2022) All outcomes | SMD -0.778 [-1.167, -0.390] | 7 studies | GRADE not reported |
Sugar-free chewing gum (any polyol: xylitol, sorbitol, or maltitol), chewed regularly vs No sugar-free gum / no chewing gum (or gum-base control); no chewing Plaque quantity (plaque index or plaque weight) · Adults and children (predominantly adults; one study in children), with natural dentition · End of study (last reported time point; study durations 4 days to 2 years), Community, residential care homes, and schools; predominantly adults, Sensitivity analysis (pre-post correlation set to 0.95 for the SFG group) A sensitivity analysis assuming a 0.95 pre-post correlation for the SFG group gave a larger reduction in plaque quantity (SMD -1.098, 95% CI -1.539 to -0.656; I2 = 89.73%; ungraded). A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Role of Sugar-Free Chewing Gum on Plaque Quantity in the Oral… (2022) All outcomes | SMD -1.098 [-1.539, -0.656] | 7 studies | GRADE not reported |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Role of Sugar-Free Chewing Gum on Plaque Quantity in the Oral Cavity. 2022 All outcomes | Primary research published 1 January 1946 to 31 August 2020 | 8 | Critically Low / Critically Low |
Studies behind the findings
The primary studies the full-text reviews tie to this outcome. Reviews with headline outcomes only do not list them here.
- Effects of xylitol in chewing gum on dental plaque and Streptococcus mutans · 2020 · included by 1 of these review
- Effects of sugar‐free chewing gum sweetened with xylitol or maltitol on the development of gingivitis and plaque: <i>a randomized clinical… · 2014 · included by 1 of these review
- The potential benefits of sugar‐free chewing gum on the oral health and quality of life of older people living in the community: a… · 2012 · included by 1 of these review
- Long-Term Effect of Xylitol Gum Use on Mutans Streptococci in Adults · 2007 · included by 1 of these review
- The effect of chlorhexidine acetate/xylitol chewing gum on the plaque and gingival indices of elderly occupants in residential homes. A… · 2001 · included by 1 of these review
- A 24-month Clinical Study of the Incidence and Progression of Dental Caries in Relation to Consumption of Chewing Gum Containing Xylitol… · 1990 · included by 1 of these review
- Effect of a xylitol chewing gum on plaque quantity and quality · 1975 · included by 1 of these review
- Saheer 2019 · included by 1 of these review
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.