Antiplaque and antigingivitis efficacy of medicated and non-medicated sugar-free chewing gum as adjuncts to toothbrushing: systematic review and network meta-analysis

Objective This network meta-analysis (NMA) assessed the antiplaque and anti-inflammatory efficacy of different sugar-free chewing gums (SFCG) as adjuncts to toothbrushing. Material and methods PubMed, Scopus, EMBASE, Web of Science, and CENTRAL databases were searched up to February 2021 to identify randomized controlled trials, involving adults, comparing antiplaque and anti-inflammatory effects of SFCG, with different active ingredients, as adjunctive to mechanical control of biofilm, with a minimum of 7-day of follow-up. Plaque and gingival indexes were assessed. The risk of bias assessment was performed with the RoB 2.0 tool. NMA, and pairwise meta-analyses were performed for both dental plaque and gingival indexes. Results Twelve studies were included, comprising 850 (antiplaque) and 1459 (gingival inflammation) subjects randomized into 9 interventions: (1) chlorhexidine; (2) chlorhexidine + xylitol (CHX+Xyl); (3) green tea + xylitol (GT+Xyl); (4) magnolia; (5) Lactobacillus reuteri; (6) vitamin C + xylitol; (7) vitamin + carbamide; (8) eucalyptus; and (9) negative control, sorbitol, gum base only, or no chewing gum. No statistically significant differences were detected among SFCG, with different active ingredients, for both antiplaque and anti-inflammatory efficacy (p > 0.05). However, SFCG with GT+XyL outperformed negative control gums regarding antiplaque efficacy (SMD, - 2.93; 95% CrI, - 0.45 to - 5.38). The SUCRA results showed that SFCG containing GT+Xyl was ranked first, for both antiplaque and anti-inflammatory outcomes. Conclusion SFCG containing GT+Xyl showed better antiplaque effect over negative controls. However, cautious interpretation is required due to the low number of direct comparisons arms. These shortcomings underscore the need for RCTs with mostly head-to-head comparison that provide more conclusive evidence.