西帕依固龈液治疗单纯性牙龈炎临床疗效及口臭值的系统评价

A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials for Clinical Efficacy and OS on Xi-Pa-Yi Mouth Rinse for Simple Gingivitis

目的:系统评价西帕依固龈液治疗单纯性牙龈炎的临床疗效及对口臭值的改善。方法:计算机检索CNKI中国知网(总库)(1979-2012)年、维普期刊资源整合服务平台(1989-2013)年、美国图书馆PubMed/MEDLINE相关文献。根据Jadad量表对纳入文献进行质量评价。采用Cochrane协作网提供的RevMan 5.2.0分析软件进行Meta分析。结果:共纳入4项临床随机对照研究,共360例单纯性牙龈炎患者。Meta分析结果显示,西帕依固龈液与生理盐水、西药比较治疗单纯性牙龈炎口臭值(OS)的加权均差(WMD)(95%置信区间)分别为-0.48(-0.81,-0.16)、0.04(-0.15,0.22);西帕依固龈液与生理盐水、西药比较治疗单纯性牙龈炎临床疗效相对危险度(RR)(95%置信区间)分别为1.67(1.29,2.15)、1.22(0.35,4.20)。结论:当前的临床证据显示,西帕依固龈液治疗单纯性牙龈炎疗效优于生理盐水,与西药作用相似,可降低牙龈炎患者口臭值,且无明显副作用,服用方便。由于纳入研究样本量小且质量较低,尚需开展高质量、多中心、大样本的临床随机双盲对照试验加以证实。

This study was aimed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of Xi-Pa-Y i （XPY） Mouth Rinse in the treatment of simple gingivitis and improved value for halitosis. Related literatures were systematically searched in the China Na-tional Knowledge Infrastructure （CNKI, 1979-2012）, Weipu Database for Chinese Technical Periodicals （1989-2013）, PubMed and Cochrane Library. The methodological quality of included trials was assessed based on the Jadad scale. And the available data were analyzed with RevMan software （version 5.2.0）. The results showed that a total of 4 stud-ies involving 360 participants satisfied the minimum criteria for meta-analysis. The evidences showed that the XPY Mouth Rinse was compared with saline or western medicine for treatment of the OS of simple gingivitis WMD （95%confidence interval） were -0.48 （-0.81, -0.16）, 0.04 （-0.15, 0.22）, respectively; the XPY Mouth Rinse was com-pared with saline or western medicine for treatment of simple gingivitis clinical efficacy＆#39;s RR （95% confidence inter-val） were 1.67 （1.29, 2.15）, 1.22 （0.35, 4.20）, respectively. It was concluded that the current clinical evidence showed that the effectiveness of XPY Mouth Rinse in the treatment of simple gingivitis was higher than the saline. It had similar effects with western medicine, which can reduce the OS, and with no significant side effects and easy to take. However, due to the low quality studies and small sample amount, it is still need to be confirmed by the high-quality, multi-center, large sample, randomized, double-blind clinical controlled trials.