Cargando…

Comparison of foam swabs and toothbrushes as oral hygiene interventions in mechanically ventilated patients: a randomised split mouth study

INTRODUCTION: During critical illness, dental plaque may serve as a reservoir of respiratory pathogens. This study compared the effectiveness of toothbrushing with a small-headed toothbrush or a foam-headed swab in mechanically ventilated patients. METHODS: This was a randomised, assessor-blinded, s...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Marino, Paola J, Hannigan, Ailish, Haywood, Sean, Cole, Jade M, Palmer, Nicki, Emanuel, Charlotte, Kinsella, Tracey, Lewis, Michael A O, Wise, Matt P, Williams, David W
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5073587/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27843549
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjresp-2016-000150
_version_ 1782461605111398400
author Marino, Paola J
Hannigan, Ailish
Haywood, Sean
Cole, Jade M
Palmer, Nicki
Emanuel, Charlotte
Kinsella, Tracey
Lewis, Michael A O
Wise, Matt P
Williams, David W
author_facet Marino, Paola J
Hannigan, Ailish
Haywood, Sean
Cole, Jade M
Palmer, Nicki
Emanuel, Charlotte
Kinsella, Tracey
Lewis, Michael A O
Wise, Matt P
Williams, David W
author_sort Marino, Paola J
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: During critical illness, dental plaque may serve as a reservoir of respiratory pathogens. This study compared the effectiveness of toothbrushing with a small-headed toothbrush or a foam-headed swab in mechanically ventilated patients. METHODS: This was a randomised, assessor-blinded, split-mouth trial, performed at a single critical care unit. Adult, orally intubated patients with >20 teeth, where >24 hours of mechanical ventilation was expected were included. Teeth were cleaned 12-hourly using a foam swab or toothbrush (each randomly assigned to one side of the mouth). Cleaning efficacy was based on plaque scores, gingival index and microbial plaque counts. RESULTS: High initial plaque (mean=2.1 (SD 0.45)) and gingival (mean=2.0 (SD 0.54)) scores were recorded for 21 patients. A significant reduction compared with initial plaque index occurred using both toothbrushes (mean change=−1.26, 95% CI −1.57 to −0.95; p<0.001) and foam swabs (mean change=−1.28, 95% CI −1.54 to −1.01; p<0.001). There was significant reduction in gingival index over time using toothbrushes (mean change=−0.92; 95% CI −1.19 to −0.64; p<0.001) and foam swabs (mean change=−0.85; 95% CI −1.10 to −0.61; p<0.001). Differences between cleaning methods were not statistically significant (p=0.12 for change in gingival index; p=0.24 for change in plaque index). There was no significant change in bacterial dental plaque counts between toothbrushing (mean change 3.7×10(4) colony-forming units (CFUs); minimum to maximum (−2.5×10(10) CFUs, 8.7×10(7) CFUs)) and foam swabs (mean change 9×10(4) CFUs; minimum to maximum (−3.1×10(10) CFUs, 3.0×10(7) CFUs)). CONCLUSIONS: Patients admitted to adult intensive care had poor oral health, which improved after brushing with a toothbrush or foam swab. Both interventions were equally effective at removing plaque and reducing gingival inflammation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01154257; Pre-results.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5073587
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-50735872016-11-14 Comparison of foam swabs and toothbrushes as oral hygiene interventions in mechanically ventilated patients: a randomised split mouth study Marino, Paola J Hannigan, Ailish Haywood, Sean Cole, Jade M Palmer, Nicki Emanuel, Charlotte Kinsella, Tracey Lewis, Michael A O Wise, Matt P Williams, David W BMJ Open Respir Res Critical Care INTRODUCTION: During critical illness, dental plaque may serve as a reservoir of respiratory pathogens. This study compared the effectiveness of toothbrushing with a small-headed toothbrush or a foam-headed swab in mechanically ventilated patients. METHODS: This was a randomised, assessor-blinded, split-mouth trial, performed at a single critical care unit. Adult, orally intubated patients with >20 teeth, where >24 hours of mechanical ventilation was expected were included. Teeth were cleaned 12-hourly using a foam swab or toothbrush (each randomly assigned to one side of the mouth). Cleaning efficacy was based on plaque scores, gingival index and microbial plaque counts. RESULTS: High initial plaque (mean=2.1 (SD 0.45)) and gingival (mean=2.0 (SD 0.54)) scores were recorded for 21 patients. A significant reduction compared with initial plaque index occurred using both toothbrushes (mean change=−1.26, 95% CI −1.57 to −0.95; p<0.001) and foam swabs (mean change=−1.28, 95% CI −1.54 to −1.01; p<0.001). There was significant reduction in gingival index over time using toothbrushes (mean change=−0.92; 95% CI −1.19 to −0.64; p<0.001) and foam swabs (mean change=−0.85; 95% CI −1.10 to −0.61; p<0.001). Differences between cleaning methods were not statistically significant (p=0.12 for change in gingival index; p=0.24 for change in plaque index). There was no significant change in bacterial dental plaque counts between toothbrushing (mean change 3.7×10(4) colony-forming units (CFUs); minimum to maximum (−2.5×10(10) CFUs, 8.7×10(7) CFUs)) and foam swabs (mean change 9×10(4) CFUs; minimum to maximum (−3.1×10(10) CFUs, 3.0×10(7) CFUs)). CONCLUSIONS: Patients admitted to adult intensive care had poor oral health, which improved after brushing with a toothbrush or foam swab. Both interventions were equally effective at removing plaque and reducing gingival inflammation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01154257; Pre-results. BMJ Publishing Group 2016-10-14 /pmc/articles/PMC5073587/ /pubmed/27843549 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjresp-2016-000150 Text en Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/ This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
spellingShingle Critical Care
Marino, Paola J
Hannigan, Ailish
Haywood, Sean
Cole, Jade M
Palmer, Nicki
Emanuel, Charlotte
Kinsella, Tracey
Lewis, Michael A O
Wise, Matt P
Williams, David W
Comparison of foam swabs and toothbrushes as oral hygiene interventions in mechanically ventilated patients: a randomised split mouth study
title Comparison of foam swabs and toothbrushes as oral hygiene interventions in mechanically ventilated patients: a randomised split mouth study
title_full Comparison of foam swabs and toothbrushes as oral hygiene interventions in mechanically ventilated patients: a randomised split mouth study
title_fullStr Comparison of foam swabs and toothbrushes as oral hygiene interventions in mechanically ventilated patients: a randomised split mouth study
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of foam swabs and toothbrushes as oral hygiene interventions in mechanically ventilated patients: a randomised split mouth study
title_short Comparison of foam swabs and toothbrushes as oral hygiene interventions in mechanically ventilated patients: a randomised split mouth study
title_sort comparison of foam swabs and toothbrushes as oral hygiene interventions in mechanically ventilated patients: a randomised split mouth study
topic Critical Care
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5073587/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27843549
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjresp-2016-000150
work_keys_str_mv AT marinopaolaj comparisonoffoamswabsandtoothbrushesasoralhygieneinterventionsinmechanicallyventilatedpatientsarandomisedsplitmouthstudy
AT hanniganailish comparisonoffoamswabsandtoothbrushesasoralhygieneinterventionsinmechanicallyventilatedpatientsarandomisedsplitmouthstudy
AT haywoodsean comparisonoffoamswabsandtoothbrushesasoralhygieneinterventionsinmechanicallyventilatedpatientsarandomisedsplitmouthstudy
AT colejadem comparisonoffoamswabsandtoothbrushesasoralhygieneinterventionsinmechanicallyventilatedpatientsarandomisedsplitmouthstudy
AT palmernicki comparisonoffoamswabsandtoothbrushesasoralhygieneinterventionsinmechanicallyventilatedpatientsarandomisedsplitmouthstudy
AT emanuelcharlotte comparisonoffoamswabsandtoothbrushesasoralhygieneinterventionsinmechanicallyventilatedpatientsarandomisedsplitmouthstudy
AT kinsellatracey comparisonoffoamswabsandtoothbrushesasoralhygieneinterventionsinmechanicallyventilatedpatientsarandomisedsplitmouthstudy
AT lewismichaelao comparisonoffoamswabsandtoothbrushesasoralhygieneinterventionsinmechanicallyventilatedpatientsarandomisedsplitmouthstudy
AT wisemattp comparisonoffoamswabsandtoothbrushesasoralhygieneinterventionsinmechanicallyventilatedpatientsarandomisedsplitmouthstudy
AT williamsdavidw comparisonoffoamswabsandtoothbrushesasoralhygieneinterventionsinmechanicallyventilatedpatientsarandomisedsplitmouthstudy