A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Role of Sugar-Free Chewing Gum in Dental Caries

Chewing Gum Is Associated with Better Diet Quality but Not Oral Health Measures in U.S. Adults

OBJECTIVE

Chewing gum (especially sugar-free gum) has been linked to improved oral health, however there is an absence of observational research using nationally-representative data in the United States. We sought to examine the factors associated with chewing gum and its relationship with the oral health status of U.S. adults.

METHODS

Cross-sectional data from the U.S. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) 2013-2018 cycles were used in these analyses. Primary outcomes were the odds of having gum disease, treatment for gum disease, ever being told of bone loss around teeth, root caries, caries, and restoration. Unadjusted and multivariate logistic regression models were used to investigate the relationship of chewing gum use with demographic/lifestyle factors and the oral health status of participants.

RESULTS

2.40% (n = 365) of adults were users of chewing gum and the average among users was 5.20 ± 0.40 g/d. Users of chewing gum were more likely to be female, younger in age, and non-Hispanic Black or Hispanic. Self-reported chewing gum use did not affect the oral health status of U.S. adults (OR: 1.10, 95% CI: 0.42-2.88 for gum disease; OR: 1.34, 95% CI: 0.64-2.81 for treatment for gum disease; OR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.27-1.17 for bone loss around teeth; OR: 1.01, 95% CI: 0.32-3.12 for root caries; OR: 0.96, 95% CI: 0.54-1.69 for caries), except for restoration (OR: 3.54, 95% CI: 1.78-7.06), but was associated with improved diet quality (OR: 1.86, 95% CI: 1.11-3.12 for a healthy eating index (HEI) of 51-59; OR: 1.96, 95% CI: 1.08-3.56 for HEI of 60-93); and decreased intakes of snacks (OR: 1.64, 1.01-2.69), and added sugars.

CONCLUSION

Future observational studies that more accurately capture chewing gum usage are needed, as these analyses have several limitations.

Evidence pertaining to modifiable risk factors for oral diseases: an umbrella review to Inform oral health messages for Australia

The aim of this umbrella review was to collate and appraise the evidence base regarding modifiable risk factors for the prevention of oral diseases to inform the update of the Oral Health Messages for Australia. Eleven questions related to modifiable risk factors and dental disease were investigated. Electronic databases (Medline, Embase and PubMed) were searched from January 2010 to October 2022. Systematic reviews evaluating interventions/exposures in healthy subjects from high-income countries, where Westernized practices, oral health promotion and healthcare systems are similar to Australia, were included. Quality appraisal of included systematic reviews was guided by the AMSTAR tool. Of the 3637 articles identified, 29 articles met eligibility criteria. High-quality systematic reviews were identified for questions relating to diet, infant feeding, dental check-ups and oral hygiene. Free sugars consumption above 5% of energy intake, infrequent toothbrushing, smoking/vaping and alcohol intake were consistently associated with poorer oral health outcomes. Breastfeeding up to the age of 24 months was not associated with an increased risk of early childhood caries. The use of interdental cleaning devices and mouthguards during contact sports are likely to be effective in preventing dental disease.

Delivery of biologics: Topical administration

Biologics are unaffordable to a large majority of the global population because of prohibitively expensive fermentation systems, purification and the requirement for cold chain for storage and transportation. Limitations of current production and delivery systems of biologics were evident during the recent pandemic when <2.5% of vaccines produced were available to low-income countries and ∼19 million doses were discarded in Africa due to lack of cold-chain infrastructure. Among FDA-approved biologics since 2015, >90% are delivered using invasive methods. While oral or topical drugs are highly preferred by patients because of their affordability and convenience, only two oral drugs have been approved by FDA since 2015. A newly launched oral biologic costs only ∼3% of the average cost of injectable biologics because of the simplified regulatory approval process by elimination of prohibitively expensive fermentation, purification, cold storage/transportation. In addition, the cost of developing a new biologic injectable product (∼$2.5 billion) has been dramatically reduced through oral or topical delivery. Topical delivery has the unique advantage of targeted delivery of high concentration protein drugs, without getting diluted in circulating blood. However, only very few topical drugs have been approved by the FDA. Therefore, this review highlights recent advances in oral or topical delivery of proteins at early or advanced stages of human clinical trials using chewing gums, patches or sprays, or nucleic acid drugs directly, or in combination with, nanoparticles and offers future directions.

A concise review of chewing gum as an anti-cariogenic agent

Chewing gum has been endorsed as a caries preventive agent by the FDI World Dental Federation, the American Dental Association, and the European Food Safety Authority. This review discusses the mechanism and provides an update of the use of chewing gum for caries prevention. Chewing gum typically consists of a water-insoluble gum base, water-soluble added ingredients, and active ingredients. It can be classified as sugar-containing or sugar-free, as well as nonmedicated or medicated. Chewing gum prevents dental caries through a range of mechanisms, including the clearance of the oral cavity, neutralization of oral acidity, inhibition of cariogenic bacterial growth, remineralization of enamel, and reduction of appetite. Recent clinical studies have evaluated the efficacy of sugar-free chewing gum for caries prevention, with most demonstrating positive results, although some studies have reported contradictory outcomes. To achieve optimal caries prevention, it is generally recommended that individuals chew sugar-free gum for five minutes after meals, three times daily.

Comparative assessment of chewing sugar-free gum and conventional analgesic drugs in alleviating self-reported pain associated with fixed orthodontic appliances: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

To compare the effect of chewing sugar-free gum towards alleviating self-reported orthodontic treatment (OT) pain compared with conventional analgesic drugs (CADs).

SEARCH SOURCES

An unrestricted search of indexed databases and manual searching was performed up to September 2021.

DATA SELECTION

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the impact of chewing gum and CADs on relieving self-reported orthodontic pain were included.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data screening, extraction and risk of bias (RoB) assessment were performed by two authors. Meta-analyses were performed using a random-effects model. The quality of available evidence was assessed using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach.

RESULTS

Nine RCTs were included. Eight RCTs used the Visual Analogue Scale for self-reported pain assessment, while one RCT used the Numeric Rating Scale. Five RCTs had a high RoB and four RCTs had a moderate RoB. Power analysis for sample size estimation was performed in six RCTs. Separate meta-analyses were performed by pooling quantitative data from five RCTs that compared self-reported orthodontic pain between chewing gum and ibuprofen groups for the following timepoints: baseline; immediately; 2 hours; 6 hours; bedtime; 24 hours; 2 days; 3 days; 5 days; and 7 days after the placement of orthodontic appliances. None of the timepoints individually indicated a difference in self-reported pain scores between chewing sugar-free gum and ibuprofen groups. The overall level of evidence was very low.

CONCLUSION

Chewing sugar-free gum is a potentially useful alternative to CADs towards pain alleviation during fixed OT.

Chewing Gums as a Drug Delivery Approach for Oral Health

Background

Drug delivery approaches with the shortest therapeutic period and the lowest side effects have always been considered a sublime target in the medical sciences. Among many delivery methods, chewing gum could be perceived as a promising drug carrier that can carry several types of drugs for oral health. These drug carriers could represent optimal therapeutic time and lower side effects due to their sustained release capability and lower required thresholds for the drug compared with other delivery approaches. The convenient use in the oral cavity's local environment and the ability to locally carry multiple drugs are considered the main advantages of this delivery approach.

Aim

This review aimed to explore chewing gum as a promising drug carrier that can carry several types of drugs for oral health.

Materials and Methods

Articles were searched for on PubMed, ISI, SCOPUS, Google Patents, the Royal Society of Chemistry website, and electronic databases using MESH terms and the following keywords: ("Gum" OR "Chewing gum") and ("Drug delivery OR Drug delivery systems") in the English language. No time limit was applied, and all documents as of August 30th, 2020 were retrieved.

Results

Gum-drug interactions, mechanisms of release, and formulations of the drugs might all play a role in this versatile delivery method. Accordingly, chewing gum-based carriers may be presented as a plausible candidate for drug delivery in oral diseases.

Conclusion

Gum-driven drugs could be introduced as promising candidates for treating oral diseases due to their ability to deliver the proper local dosages of active ingredients, short contact time, biocompatibility, and biodegradable chemical structures.

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Role of Sugar-Free Chewing Gum on Plaque Quantity in the Oral Cavity

Background

The aim of this systematic review of published literature was to answer the research question, “What is the difference in the level of plaque quantity, in adults and children who chew sugar-free gum (SFG), compared with those who do not chew SFG, who do not chew gum, or who use alternatives such as probiotics or fluoride varnish?”.

Methods

The systematic review [registered on PROSPERO 2018 (CRD42018094676)] included studies on adults and children with chewing of SFG as the main intervention, where “sugar” referred to monosaccharides and disaccharides. Included studies were in English and corresponded to primary research published between 1946 and 2020. The search conducted spanned all relevant databases using both Medical Subject Headings (MESH) and free text with combinations of “chewing gum,” “sugar-free,” “caries,” “xerostomia,” “periodontal disease.”

Results

Eight articles included plaque quantity as part of their outcomes. Meta-analysis showed that SFG significantly reduced plaque quantity (effect size−0.778; 95% CI−1.167 to−0.39). The correlation between the baseline and the end of study data was assumed to be 0.95 for the control and 0.65 for the SFG group. A sensitivity analysis was conducted with the pre- to post-test correlation, set at 0.95 for the SFG group. This gave an effect size of−1.098 (95% CI−1.539 to−0.656) with I² = 89.73%. When looking more specifically at xylitol gum, the results of the meta-analysis showed that it significantly reduced plaque quantity (effect size−0.743; 95% CI−1.148 to−0.338). There was a high degree of heterogeneity between studies with I² = 86.0%.

Conclusion

There is some evidence that chewing sugar-free gum, in particular xylitol SFG, reduces the quantity of plaque in the oral cavity in comparison to non SFG chewing or no chewing controls. Further research with improved design, lengthier timeframes and higher number of participants should be considered.

Systematic Review Registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=94676.

The economic benefits of increased sugar-free chewing gum in China: a budget impact analysis

Background

To analyze the potential cost savings in dental care associated with increased sugar-free gum (SFG) use among Chinese teenagers and adults.

Methods

The amount of SFG chewed per year and decayed, missing and filled teeth (DMFT) was collected from a cross-sectional survey to create a dose–response curve assumption. A cost analysis of dental restoration costs was carried out. A budget impact analysis was performed to model the decrease in DMFT and the subsequent cost savings for dental care. Three different scenarios for the increase in the number of SFG were calculated.

Results

The average cost savings per person in the Chinese population due to increasing SFG use ranged from 45.95 RMB (6.94 USD) per year to 67.41 RMB (10.19 USD) per year. It was estimated that 21.51–31.55 billion RMB (3.25–4.77 billion USD) could be saved annually if all SFG chewers among Chinese teenagers and adults chewed SFG regularly.

Conclusion

This study suggests that dental care costs could be significantly reduced if SFG use increased in the Chinese population.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12903-021-01786-8.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of the role of sugar-free chewing gum on Streptococcus mutans

Background

Preventive strategies targeting Streptococcus mutans may be effective in reducing the global burden of caries. The aim of the current systematic review of published literature was to determine the difference in level of Streptococcus mutans in adults and children who chew sugar-free gum (SFG), compared with those who did not chew gum, who chewed a control gum or received alternatives such as probiotics or fluoride varnish.

Methods

Systematic review (PROSPERO registration No. CRD42018094676) of controlled trials with adult and child participants where chewing of SFG was the main intervention. Databases searched (1 Jan 1946 to 31 August 2020): MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Scopus, Web of Science, Allied and Complimentary Medicine Database, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Open Grey, PROSPERO and the Cochrane library of systematic reviews. ‘Search terms included Medical Subject Headings, and free text to cover the following range of constructs: chewing gum, sugar free, oral health, caries, xerostomia, periodontal disease. Data extraction and Risk of Bias assessment was undertaken by three researchers using a modified version of the Cochrane RoB tool (version 1). Data synthesis was conducted using meta-analysis in STATA.

Results

Thirteen studies of SFG with micro-organisms as outcomes were identified. The use of SFG significantly reduced the load of Streptococcus mutans (effect size − 0.42; 95% CI − 0.60 to − 0.25) compared to all controls. In seven of the 13 studies the confidence intervals of the effect size estimate included zero, suggesting no effect of the intervention. Twelve trials used xylitol gum only as the basis of the intervention; xylitol gum significantly reduced the load of Streptococcus mutans (effect size − 0.46; 95% CI − 0.64 to − 0.28) in comparison to all controls. There was a moderate level of heterogeneity across the included studies. No adverse effects were recorded.

Conclusion

Chewing SFG reduces the load of Streptococcus mutans in the oral cavity in comparison to non-chewing controls. Considering the degree of variability in the effect and the moderate quality of the trials included, there is a need for future research exploring the use SFG as a preventive measure for reducing the cariogenic oral bacterial load.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12903-021-01517-z.