RESUMO
BACKGROUND: To study and review the effectiveness of oral care interventions for palliative patients for amelioration of clinical conditions affecting oral cavity. METHODS: Following PRISMA standard, a systematic evaluation of articles published between 2000 and 2021 was undertaken utilising five databases on interventions studies. This comprehensive review consists of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and specific types of non-randomised studies (NRS) examining oral care interventions for palliative patients. Three independent authors screened search records, identified related studies, extracted data and evaluated risk of bias. The key findings of each study were summarised according to the research questions and data that generated during the data extraction procedure. RESULTS: Out of the 67 identified studies, seven were included in this review (five RCTs and two NRSs) involving head-and-neck cancer, oral cancer, oral mucositis, xerostomia and individuals with malignant disease. Interventions studied were: Ziziphus honey, artificial saliva, CAM2028-Benzydamine, morphine mouthwash, ketamine mouthwash, bethanechol tablets and caphosol with regular oral-care. The durations of interventions in the included studies were largely short-term (six weeks or less). Overall, six studies revealed good results in support of the intervention, with magnitudes of effect ranging from 13.2-10,110.0%. However, just four researches found significant changes, with magnitudes of effect ranging from 50.0-10,110.0%. Although two of the trials have not revealed significant changes in the results, investigations have indicated a reduction in oral conditions in the group with interventions. Only one trial has not indicated an improvement in oral conditions in the groups which received the interventions. DISCUSSION: By assessing the efficacy of available oral hygiene interventions for palliative patients, this systematic review can help palliative team finds the viable strategies to apply in controlling oral problems among hospice patients. Even though only four of the seven research found a statistically significant difference, most studies found great effectiveness in favour of intervention.
