Findings

What do systematic reviews say?

Refine by population, intervention, comparison or outcome
More filters
Evidence found and GRADE certainty

43 questions · 53 findings · 10 reviews · Dental caries

No studies found 6 · 11.3%GRADE not reported 29 · 54.7%Very low 12 · 22.6%Low 2 · 3.8%Moderate 4 · 7.5%High 0 · 0%

Consumption of xylitol chewing gum by women (mothers) vs No chewing gum

Plaque · Adults and children (predominantly adults; one study in children), with natural dentition

Xylitol sugar-free gum significantly reduced plaque quantity versus no-gum/control (SMD -0.743, 95% CI -1.148 to -0.338), with high heterogeneity (I2 = 86.0%; ungraded).

1 finding from 1 review

Daily chewing gum for 2 weeks or longer vs No gum chewing or control

Salivary flow rate (unstimulated) · Elderly (>60 years) and medically compromised adults with xerostomia / dry mouth

codex

1 finding from 1 review

Gum chewing (sugar-free) vs No chewing gum

Plaque · Adults and children (predominantly adults; one study in children), with natural dentition

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).

2 findings from 1 review

Xylitol-only sugar-free chewing gum 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)

Xylitol-only sugar-free gum significantly reduced Streptococcus mutans load versus pooled controls (SMD -0.46, 95% CI -0.64 to -0.28; 12 trials, I2 43%); certainty not formally graded.

1 finding from 1 review

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) · Adults and children (general population)

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.

2 findings from 1 review

Consumption of xylitol chewing gum by women (mothers) vs no intervention

Change in Mutans streptococci (MS) count in saliva · healthy people

Xylitol significantly reduced Mutans streptococci in saliva compared with no intervention (SMD -1.47, 95% CI -1.94 to -0.99; 3 trials), though heterogeneity was very high (I2=98%); not GRADE-rated.

1 finding from 1 review

Gum chewing (sugar-free) vs No chewing gum

Self-reported thirst · Elderly (>60 years) and medically compromised adults with xerostomia / dry mouth

Gum chewing reduced self-reported thirst in most studies (6 of 7 positive, 1 no effect); not meta-analyzed.

1 finding from 1 review

Gum chewing (sugar-free) vs No chewing gum

Salivary flow rate · Elderly (>60 years) and medically compromised adults with xerostomia / dry mouth

Across 19 studies the effect of gum chewing on stimulated and/or unstimulated salivary flow rate was mixed (9 positive, 10 no effect); this broad outcome was not meta-analyzed.

1 finding from 1 review

Gum chewing (sugar-free) vs No chewing gum

Salivary flow rate (unstimulated) · Elderly (>60 years) and medically compromised adults with xerostomia / dry mouth

In elderly and medically compromised people with xerostomia, chewing sugar-free gum daily for two or more weeks produces a small but statistically significant increase in unstimulated whole salivary flow rate versus no gum (SMD 0.44, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.66); certainty of evidence was not formally graded.

1 finding from 1 review

Gum chewing (sugar-free) vs No chewing gum

Dry mouth (xerostomia) · Elderly (>60 years) and medically compromised adults with xerostomia / dry mouth

Gum chewing was linked with improved self-reported xerostomia / dry mouth in most studies (12 of 17 positive, 5 no effect); heterogeneous instruments precluded meta-analysis.

1 finding from 1 review

Fluoride supplementation (tablets, drops, lozenges or chewing gum) vs Topical fluoride (fluoride rinse, varnish or toothpaste)

Fluorosis (adverse effect; % of children with fluorotic teeth) · Children and adolescents aged 16 years or less

The review found no eligible studies for this question.

1 finding from 1 review

Fluoride supplementation (tablets, drops, lozenges or chewing gum) vs Topical fluoride (fluoride rinse, varnish or toothpaste)

Caries increment in permanent teeth · Children and adolescents aged 16 years or less
2 findings from 1 review

Fluoride supplementation (tablets, drops, lozenges or chewing gum) vs No fluoride supplement (placebo or no treatment)

Caries increment in permanent teeth · Children and adolescents aged 16 years or less
3 findings from 1 review

Fluoride supplementation (tablets, drops, lozenges or chewing gum) vs Topical fluoride (fluoride rinse, varnish or toothpaste)

Plaque and gingivitis scores · Children and adolescents aged 16 years or less
1 finding from 1 review

Fluoride supplementation (tablets, drops, lozenges or chewing gum) vs No fluoride supplement (placebo or no treatment)

Fluorosis (adverse effect; % of children with fluorotic teeth, questionable to severe) · Children and adolescents aged 16 years or less
1 finding from 1 review