Gum chewing (sugar-free) vs Pooled controls: no gum, placebo/control gum, probiotic, or fluoride varnish: Streptococcus mutans load in the oral cavity (saliva and/or dental plaque)
- Population
- Adults and children (general population)
- Intervention
- Gum chewing (sugar-free)
- Comparison
- Pooled controls: no gum, placebo/control gum, probiotic, or fluoride varnish
- Outcome
- Streptococcus mutans load in the oral cavity (saliva and/or dental plaque)
In a sensitivity analysis assuming a 0.95 baseline-to-endpoint correlation for the sugar-free gum arm, the effect remained significant (SMD -0.55, 95% CI -0.80 to -0.30; 13 trials, I2 73%); certainty not formally graded.
What each review found
Include earlier review versions| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Sugar-free chewing gum (any polyol-based SFG; predominantly xylitol) vs Pooled controls: no gum, placebo/control gum, probiotic, or fluoride varnish Streptococcus mutans load in the oral cavity (saliva and/or dental plaque) · Adults and children (general population) · Final/end-of-study time point (follow-up 2 weeks to 18 months), Schools, kindergartens, universities and community settings; adults and children; multiple countries, Sensitivity analysis: baseline-to-endpoint correlation 0.95 for SFG arm In a sensitivity analysis assuming a 0.95 baseline-to-endpoint correlation for the sugar-free gum arm, the effect remained significant (SMD -0.55, 95% CI -0.80 to -0.30; 13 trials, I2 73%); certainty not formally graded. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the role of sugar-free chewing gum on Streptococcus mutans. (2021) All outcomes | SMD -0.55 [-0.80, -0.30] | 13 studies · 1335 participants | GRADE not reported |
Sugar-free chewing gum (any polyol-based SFG; predominantly xylitol) vs Pooled controls: no gum, placebo/control gum, probiotic, or fluoride varnish Streptococcus mutans load in the oral cavity (saliva and/or dental plaque) · Adults and children (general population) · Final/end-of-study time point (follow-up 2 weeks to 18 months), Schools, kindergartens, universities and community settings; adults and children; multiple countries, Overall (vs all controls) Chewing sugar-free gum significantly reduced Streptococcus mutans load versus pooled controls (SMD -0.42, 95% CI -0.60 to -0.25; 13 controlled trials, I2 44%); certainty not formally graded. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the role of sugar-free chewing gum on Streptococcus mutans. (2021) All outcomes | SMD -0.42 [-0.60, -0.25] | 13 studies · 1335 participants | 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 Streptococcus mutans. 2021 All outcomes | 1 January 1946 to 31 August 2020 | 14 | 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.
- Plasma and urine profiles of Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol and its metabolites 11-hydroxy-Delta9-tetrahydrocannabinol and… · 2010 · included by 1 of these review
- Alamoudi 2012 / Hanno 2011 · included by 1 of these review
- Caglar 2007 · included by 1 of these review
- Campus 2009 · included by 1 of these review
- Ghasemi 2017 · included by 1 of these review
- Al-Haboubi 2012 · included by 1 of these review
- Haresaku 2007 · included by 1 of these review
- Hildebrandt 2000 · included by 1 of these review
- Hildebrandt 2010 · included by 1 of these review
- Hoerman 1979 · included by 1 of these review
- Makinen 2005 · included by 1 of these review
- Seki 2011 · included by 1 of these review
- Thaweboon 2004 · included by 1 of these review
- Wang 2006 · 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.