Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2009 Oct 7;2009(4):CD007395.
doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007395.pub2.

Interventions for cleaning dentures in adults

Raphael Freitas de Souza  1 , Helena de Freitas Oliveira Paranhos, Claudia H Lovato da Silva, Layla Abu-Naba'a, Zbys Fedorowicz, Cem A Gurgan
Affiliations

Interventions for cleaning dentures in adults

Raphael Freitas de Souza et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Removing denture plaque may be essential for maintaining the oral health of edentulous people. Brushing and soaking in chemical products are two of the most commonly used methods of cleaning dentures.

Objectives: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of different methods for cleansing removable dentures.

Search strategy: We searched the following databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to May 2009); CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 2); MEDLINE (1965 to May 2009); EMBASE (1980 to May 2009); LILACS (1980 to May 2009); and CINAHL (1997 to May 2009). There were no language restrictions.

Selection criteria: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any mechanical method (e.g. brushing or ultrasound) or chemical (e.g. enzymes, sodium hypochlorite, oral rinses or peroxide solutions) in adults over the age of 18 wearing removable partial dentures or complete dentures.The primary outcomes considered were the health of denture bearing areas (soft tissues, periodontal tissues and teeth) and participants' satisfaction and preference. Secondary outcomes included denture plaque coverage area, indicators of halitosis and microbial counts on abutment teeth, soft tissues or denture base or saliva.

Data collection and analysis: Two independent review authors screened and extracted information from, and independently assessed the risk of bias in the included trials.

Main results: Although six RCTs were included in this review, the wide range of different interventions and outcome variables did not permit pooling of data in a meta-analysis. Isolated reports indicated that chemicals and brushing appear to be more effective than placebo in the reduction of plaque coverage and microbial counts of anaerobes and aerobes on complete denture bases.

Authors' conclusions: There is a lack of evidence about the comparative effectiveness of the different denture cleaning methods considered in this review. Few well designed RCTs were found. Future research should focus on comparisons between mechanical and chemical methods; the assessment of the association of methods, primary variables and costs should also receive future attention.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

None known.

Figures

1
1
Methodological quality summary: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item for each included study.
2
2
Methodological quality graph: review authors' judgements about each methodological quality item presented as percentages across all included studies.
3
3
Forest plot of Comparison 1. Enzyme cleanser versus placebo, Outcome 1.1. Improvement on denture cleanliness (Caregivers' opinion).
4
4
Forest plot of Comparison 3. Silicone cleanser versus placebo, Outcome 3.1. Visual plaque score after 2 days.
5
5
Forest plot of Comparison 3. Silicone cleanser versus placebo, Outcome 3.2. Visual plaque score after 14 days.
6
6
Forest plot of Comparison 4. Brushing versus no treatment, Outcome 4.1. Fusobacteria.
7
7
Forest plot of Comparison 4. Brushing versus no treatment, Outcome 4.2. Total anaerobes.
8
8
Forest plot of Comparison 5. Effervescent tablets versus no treatment, Outcome 5.1. Fusobacteria.
9
9
Forest plot of Comparison 5. Effervescent tablets versus no treatment, Outcome 5.2. Total anaerobes.
10
10
Forest plot of Comparison 6. Brushing versus effervescent tablets, Outcome 6.1. Fusobacteria.
11
11
Forest plot of Comparison 6. Brushing versus effervescent tablets, Outcome 6.2. Total anaerobes.
12
12
Forest plot of Comparison 7. Association (brushing + effervescent) versus no treatment, Outcome 7.1. Fusobacteria.
13
13
Forest plot of Comparison 7. Association (brushing + effervescent) versus no treatment, Outcome 7.2. Total anaerobes.
14
14
Forest plot of Comparison 8. Brushing versus association (brushing + effervescent), Outcome 8.1. Fusobacteria.
15
15
Forest plot of Comparison 8. Brushing versus association (brushing + effervescent), Outcome 8.2. Total anaerobes.
16
16
Forest plot of Comparison 9. Effervescent tablets versus association (brushing + effervescent), Outcome 9.1. Fusobacteria.
17
17
Forest plot of Comparison 9. Effervescent tablets versus association (brushing + effervescent), Outcome 9.2. Total anaerobes.
1.1
1.1. Analysis
Comparison 1 Enzyme cleanser versus placebo, Outcome 1 Improvement on denture cleanliness (Caregivers' opinion).
3.1
3.1. Analysis
Comparison 3 Silicone cleanser versus placebo, Outcome 1 Visual plaque score after 2 days.
3.2
3.2. Analysis
Comparison 3 Silicone cleanser versus placebo, Outcome 2 Visual plaque score after 14 days.
4.1
4.1. Analysis
Comparison 4 Brushing versus no treatment, Outcome 1 Fusobacteria.
4.2
4.2. Analysis
Comparison 4 Brushing versus no treatment, Outcome 2 Total anaerobes.
5.1
5.1. Analysis
Comparison 5 Effervescent tablets versus no treatment, Outcome 1 Fusobacteria.
5.2
5.2. Analysis
Comparison 5 Effervescent tablets versus no treatment, Outcome 2 Total anaerobes.
6.1
6.1. Analysis
Comparison 6 Brushing versus effervescent tablets, Outcome 1 Fusobacteria.
6.2
6.2. Analysis
Comparison 6 Brushing versus effervescent tablets, Outcome 2 Total anaerobes.
7.1
7.1. Analysis
Comparison 7 Association (brushing + effervescent) versus no treatment, Outcome 1 Fusobacteria.
7.2
7.2. Analysis
Comparison 7 Association (brushing + effervescent) versus no treatment, Outcome 2 Total anaerobes.
8.1
8.1. Analysis
Comparison 8 Brushing versus association (brushing + effervescent), Outcome 1 Fusobacteria.
8.2
8.2. Analysis
Comparison 8 Brushing versus association (brushing + effervescent), Outcome 2 Total anaerobes.
9.1
9.1. Analysis
Comparison 9 Effervescent tablets versus association (brushing + effervescent), Outcome 1 Fusobacteria.
9.2
9.2. Analysis
Comparison 9 Effervescent tablets versus association (brushing + effervescent), Outcome 2 Total anaerobes.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

References to studies included in this review

Budtz‐Jorgensen 1978a {published data only}
    1. Budtz‐Jorgensen E. A 3‐months' study of enzymes as denture cleansers. British Dental Journal 1978;145(8):226. - PubMed
    1. Budtz‐Jorgensen E. A 3‐months' study of enzymes as denture cleansers. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 1978;5(1):35‐9. - PubMed
Budtz‐Jorgensen 1983b {published data only}
    1. Budtz‐Jørgensen E, Kelstrup J, Poulsen S. Reduction of formation of denture plaque by a protease (Alcalase). Acta Odontologica Scandinavica 1983;41(2):93‐8. - PubMed
Chan 1991 {published data only}
    1. Chan EC, Iugovaz I, Siboo R, Bilyk M, Barolet R, Amsel R, et al. Comparison of two popular methods for removal and killing of bacteria from dentures. Journal of the Canadian Dental Association 1991;57(12):937‐9. - PubMed
Moore 1984 {published data only}
    1. Moore TC, Smith DE, Kenny GE. Sanitization of dentures by several denture hygiene methods. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1984;52(2):158‐63. - PubMed
Sheen 2000 {published data only}
    1. Sheen SR, Harrison A. Assessment of plaque prevention on dentures using an experimental cleanser. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 2000;84(6):594‐601. - PubMed
Tarbet 1984 {published data only}
    1. Tarbet WJ, Axelrod S, Minkoff S, Fratarcangelo PA. Denture cleansing: a comparison of two methods. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1984;51(3):322‐5. - PubMed

References to studies excluded from this review

Abelson 1981 {published data only}
    1. Abelson DC. Denture plaque and denture cleansers. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1981;45(4):376‐9. - PubMed
Augsburger 1982 {published data only}
    1. Augsburger RH, Elahi JM. Evaluation of seven proprietary denture cleansers. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1982;47(4):356‐9. - PubMed
Barnabé 2004 {published data only}
    1. Barnabé W, Mendonça Neto T, Pimenta FC, Pegoraro LF, Scolaro JM. Efficacy of sodium hypochlorite and coconut soap used as disinfecting agents in the reduction of denture stomatitis, Streptococcus mutans and Candida albicans. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 2004;31(5):453‐9. - PubMed
Budtz‐Jorgensen 1977a {published data only}
    1. Budtz‐Jorgensen E. Prevention of denture plaque formation by an enzyme denture cleanser. Journal de Biologie Buccale 1977;5(3):239‐44. - PubMed
Budtz‐Jorgensen 1977b {published data only}
    1. Budtz‐Jörgensen E, Kelstrup J. Enzymes as denture cleansers. Scandinavian Journal of Dental Research 1977;85(3):209‐15. - PubMed
Budtz‐Jorgensen 1978b {published data only}
    1. Budtz‐Jorgensen E, Milton Knudsen A. Chlorhexidine gel and Steradent employed in cleaning dentures. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica 1978;36(2):83‐7. - PubMed
Budtz‐Jorgensen 1984 {published data only}
    1. Budtz‐Jorgensen E, Attström R. A clinical evaluation of octapinol as a denture cleanser. Journal of Dental Research 1983;62(April (Divisional Abstracts)):495 (Abs No 128).
    1. Budtz‐Jorgensen E, Attström R. The effect of Octapinol, a substance with low antibacterial activity, on denture plaque and denture‐induced stomatitis. Clinical Preventive Dentistry 1984;6(1):23‐7. - PubMed
Chamberlain 1985 {published data only}
    1. Chamberlain BB, Bernier SH, Bloem TJ, Razzoog ME. Denture plaque control and inflammation in the edentulous patient. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1985;54(1):78‐81. - PubMed
Connor 1977 {published data only}
    1. Connor JN, Schoenfeld CM, Taylor RL. An evaluation of an enzyme denture cleanser. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1977;37(2):147‐57. - PubMed
Ghalichebaf 1982 {published data only}
    1. Ghalichebaf M, Graser GN, Zander HA. The efficacy of denture‐cleansing agents. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1982;48(5):515‐20. - PubMed
Glass 2001 {published data only}
    1. Glass RT, Goodson LB, Bullard JW, Conrad RS. Comparison of the effectiveness of several denture sanitizing systems: a clinical study. Compendium of Continuing Education in Dentistry 2001;22(12):1093‐6. - PubMed
Gornitsky 2002 {published data only}
    1. Gornitsky M, ParadisI I, Landaverde G, Malo AM, Velly AM. A clinical and microbiological evaluation of denture cleansers for geriatric patients in long‐term care institutions. Journal of the Canadian Dental Association 2002;68(1):39‐45. - PubMed
Hedegard 1976 {published data only}
    1. Hedegard B. Clinical evaluation of an hygiene program for patients with denture stomatitis [Klinische Wertung eines Hygieneprogamms für Patien‐. ten mit Prothesenstomatitis]. Deutsche zahnärztliche Zeitschrift 1976;31(2):156‐8. - PubMed
Ito 1998 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Ito IY, Paranhos HFO, Candido RG, Lara EHG, Panzeri H. DENTAFRICIO "formulated paste" on the denture biofilm remotion after 180 and 360 days. Journal of Dental Research 1998;77(June Special Abstract Issue B):989 (Abs No 2857).
Katay 1987 {published data only}
    1. Katay L, Kerschbaum T. Intensive care for patients with removable dentures. Results after the 2d study‐year [Intensivbetreuung von Patienten mit herausnehmbarem Zahnersatz]. Deutsche zahnärztliche Zeitschrift 1987;42(4):330‐3. - PubMed
Lima 2006 {published data only}
    1. Lima EM, Moura JS, Bel Cury AA, Garcia RC, Cury JA. Effect of enzymatic and NaOCl treatments on acrylic roughness and on biofilm accumulation. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 2006;33(5):356‐62. - PubMed
Murray 1986 {published data only}
    1. Murray ID, McCabe JF, Storer R. Abrasivity of denture cleaning pastes in vitro and in situ. British Dental Journal 1986;161(4):137‐41. - PubMed
Murray 1995 {published data only}
    1. McCabe JF, Murray ID, Kelly PJ. The efficacy of denture cleansers. European Journal of Prosthodontics and Restorative Dentistry 1995;3(5):203‐7. - PubMed
    1. Murray ID, McCabe JF. Efficacy of denture cleansing agents. Journal of Dental Research 1994;73(Special Issue IADR Abstracts):286 (Abs No 1478).
Mähönen 1998 {published data only}
    1. Mähönen K, Virtanen K, Larmas M. The effect of prosthesis disinfection on salivary microbial levels. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 1998;25(4):304‐10. - PubMed
Paranhos 2007 {published and unpublished data}
    1. Paranhos HF, Silva‐Lovato CH, Souza RF, Cruz PC, Freitas KM, Peracini A. Effects of mechanical and chemical methods on denture biofilm accumulation. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 2007;34(8):606‐12. - PubMed
Salles 2007 {published data only}
    1. Salles AE, Macedo LD, Fernandes RA, Silva‐Lovato CH, Paranhos Hde F. Comparative analysis of biofilm levels in complete upper and lower dentures after brushing associated with specific denture paste and neutral soap. Gerodontology 2007;24(4):217‐23. - PubMed

Additional references

Basson 1992
    1. Basson NJ, Quick AN, Thomas CJ. Household products as sanitising agents in denture cleansing. Journal of the Dental Association of South Africa 1992;47(10):437‐9. - PubMed
Castro 1997
    1. Castro AA, Clark OA, Atallah AN. Optimal search strategy for clinical trials in the Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Literature Database (LILACS). Sao Paulo Medical Journal 1997;115(5):1423‐6. - PubMed
Castro 1999
    1. Castro AA, Clark OA, Atallah AN. Optimal search strategy for clinical trials in the Latin American and Caribbean Health Science Literature Database (LILACS database): update. Sao Paulo Medical Journal 1999;117(3):138‐9. - PubMed
Chan 1991
    1. Chan EC, Iugovaz I, Siboo R, Bilyk M, Barolet R, Amsel R, et al. Comparison of two popular methods for removal and killing of bacteria from dentures. Journal of the Canadian Dental Association 1991;57(12):937‐9. - PubMed
Egger 1997
    1. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta‐analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 1997;315(7109):629‐34. - PMC - PubMed
Grusovin 2008
    1. Grusovin MG, Coulthard P, Jourabchian E, Worthington HV, Esposito MA. Interventions for replacing missing teeth: maintaining and recovering soft tissue health around dental implants. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2008, Issue 1. [Art. No.: CD003069. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD003069.pub3] - PubMed
Haselden 1998
    1. Haselden CA, Hobkirk JA, Pearson GJ, Davies EH. A comparison between the wear resistance of three types of denture resin to three different dentifrices. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 1998;25(5):335‐9. - PubMed
Higgins 2003
    1. Higgins JP, Thompson SG, Deeks JJ, Altman DG. Measuring inconsistency in meta‐analyses. BMJ 2003;327(7414):557‐60. - PMC - PubMed
Higgins 2008
    1. Higgins JPT, Green S (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.1 [updated September 2008]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2008. Available from www.cochrane‐handbook.org.
Jagger 1995
    1. Jagger DC, Harrison A. Denture cleansing‐the best approach. British Dental Journal 1995;178(11):413‐7. - PubMed
Jeganathan 1996
    1. Jeganathan S, Thean HP, Thong KT, Chan YC, Singh M. A clinically viable index for quantifying denture plaque. Quintessence International 1996;27(8):569‐73. - PubMed
Keng 1996
    1. Keng SB, Lim M. Denture plaque distribution and the effectiveness of a perborate‐containing denture cleanser. Quintessence International 1996;27(5):341‐5. - PubMed
Kulak‐Ozkan 2002
    1. Kulak‐Ozkan Y, Kazazoglu E, Arikan A. Oral hygiene habits, denture cleanliness, presence of yeasts and stomatitis in elderly people. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 2002;29(3):300‐4. - PubMed
Nikawa 1999
    1. Nikawa H, Hamada T, Yamashiro H, Kumagai H. A review of in vitro and in vivo methods to evaluate the efficacy of denture cleansers. The International Journal of Prosthodontics 1999;12(2):153‐9. - PubMed
Paranhos 2007
    1. Paranhos HF, Silva‐Lovato CH, Souza RF, Cruz PC, Freitas KM, Peracini A. Effects of mechanical and chemical methods on denture biofilm accumulation. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 2007;34(8):606‐12. - PubMed
Pires 2002
    1. Pires FR, Santos EB, Bonan PR, Almeida OP, Lopes MA. Denture stomatitis and salivary Candida in Brazilian edentulous patients. Journal of Oral Rehabilitation 2002;29(11):1115‐9. - PubMed
Ramage 2004
    1. Ramage G, Tomsett K, Wickes BL, López‐Ribot JL, Redding SW. Denture stomatitis: a role for Candida biofilms. Oral Surgery, Oral Medicine, Oral Pathology, Oral Radiology and Endodontics 2004;98(1):53‐9. - PubMed
RevMan 2008 [Computer program]
    1. The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration. Review Manager (RevMan). Version 5.0. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2008.
Shay 2000
    1. Shay K. Denture hygiene: a review and update. The Journal of Contemporary Dental Practice 2000;1(2):28‐41. - PubMed
Sheen 2000
    1. Sheen SR, Harrison A. Assessment of plaque prevention on dentures using an experimental cleanser. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 2000;84(6):594‐601. - PubMed
Tarbet 1984
    1. Tarbet WJ, Axelrod S, Minkoff S, Fratarcangelo PA. Denture cleansing: a comparison of two methods. The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry 1984;51(3):322‐5. - PubMed
Wagner 2000
    1. Wagner B, Kern M. Clinical evaluation of removable partial dentures 10 years after insertion: success rates, hygienic problems, and technical failures. Clinical Oral Investigations 2000;4(2):74‐80. - PubMed
Wöstmann 2005
    1. Wöstmann B, Budtz‐Jørgensen E, Jepson N, Mushimoto E, Palmqvist S, Sofou A, et al. Indications for removable partial dentures: a literature review. The International Journal of Prosthodontics 2005;18(2):139‐45. - PubMed

Publication types

Substances

LinkOut - more resources