Periodontitis consists of a progressive destruction of tooth-supporting tissues. Considering that probiotics are being proposed as a support to the gold standard treatment Scaling-and-Root-Planing (SRP), this study aims to assess two new formulations (toothpaste and chewing-gum). 60 patients were randomly assigned to three domiciliary hygiene treatments: Group 1 (SRP + chlorhexidine-based toothpaste) (control), Group 2 (SRP + probiotics-based toothpaste) and Group 3 (SRP + probiotics-based toothpaste + probiotics-based chewing-gum). At baseline (T0) and after 3 and 6 months (T1–T2), periodontal clinical parameters were recorded, along with microbiological ones by means of a commercial kit. As to the former, no significant differences were shown at T1 or T2, neither in controls for any index, nor in the experimental groups for adherent gingiva and gingival recession. Conversely, some significant differences were found in Group 2 and 3 for the other clinical indexes tested. Considering microbiological parameters, no significant differences were detected compared to baseline values for any group, except in Group 2 and 3 at T2 only for the percentage of the orange complex pathogens and for the copies/microliter of Prevotella intermedia and Fusobacterium nucleatum. Accordingly, although colonization of probiotic bacteria has not been assessed in this study, the probiotics tested represent a valid support to SRP with a benefit on several clinical indexes and on specific periodontopathogens. Despite this promising action, the relationship between the use of probiotics and improvement in clinical parameters is still unclear and deserves to be further explored.
Periodontitis is an irreversible oral disease causing the destruction of tooth-supporting tissues. In addition to scaling and root planing (SRP) procedures, patients should achieve a correct domiciliary oral hygiene in order to maintain a healthy status. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the efficacy of different toothpastes in reducing gingival bleeding in periodontal patients. In addition to a professional treatment of SRP, 80 patients were randomly divided into four groups according to the toothpaste assigned for the daily domiciliary use using an electric toothbrush: Group 1 (Biorepair Gum Protection), Group 2 (Biorepair Plus Parodontgel), Group 3 (Biorepair Peribioma PRO), and Group 4 (Meridol Gum Protection) (control group). After baseline (T0), patients were visited after 15 days (T1), 3 months (T2), and 6 months (T3). At each appointment, the following periodontal indexes were assessed: bleeding on probing (BoP), full-mouth bleeding score (FMBS), and modified sulcus bleeding index (mSBI). All the experimental toothpastes caused an immediate significant modification of the three clinical indexes measured, except for the control product. Biorepair Peribioma PRO, with its paraprobiotic content, was also the only toothpaste causing a prolonged effect, reducing BoP even at T3. Accordingly, both hyaluronic acid and lactoferrin appear as reliable supports for the domiciliary management of periodontal disease. In spite of this, paraprobiotics are likely to show the most important benefit thanks to their immunomodulating mechanism of action.
Objectives: To compare the efficacy of rotating-oscillating heads (ORHs) VS sonic action heads (SAHs) powered toothbrushes on plaque accumulation and gingival inflammation. Methods: An electronic (MEDLINE, Embase, Inspec, PQ SciTech and BIOSIS) and a complementary manual search were made to detect eligible studies. RCTs meeting the following criteria were included: final timepoint longer than 15 days; year of publication after 2000; patients without orthodontic appliances or severe systemic/psychiatric diseases. Studies comparing two or more different types of sonic/roto-oscillating toothbrushes were excluded. Selection of articles, extraction of data, and assessment of quality were made independently by several reviewers. Results: 12 trials (1433 participants) were included. The differences between ORHs and SAHs toothbrushes were expressed as weighted mean differences (WMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The heterogeneity of data was evaluated. Concerning Plaque Index, both toothbrushes obtained comparable results. Six trials of up to 3 months and at an unclear risk of bias provided significant outcomes in terms of gingival inflammation in favor of ORHs toothbrush. Evidence resulting from three trials of up to 6 months and at a high/low risk of bias stated SAHs toothbrush superiority in gingival inflammation. Conclusions: Both ORHs and SAHs toothbrushes improved the outcomes measured from the baseline. In most of the good quality trials included, SAHs toothbrush showed statistical better long-term results. Due to the shortage of investigations, no further accurate conclusions can be outlined with reference to the superiority of a specific powered toothbrush over the other.
Aim: An epidemiological study was carried out, in hospital wards, with the aim of assessing the oral health status of patients subjected to multiple medical treatments. Material and Methods: The study was conducted at Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo (Pavia, Italy). A questionnaire was submitted to patients for the evaluation of oral hygiene devices used; then, a clinical examination was conducted to collect Decayed Missing Filled Teeth (DMFT) index, Plaque Index (PI), and Marginal Gingival Index (MGI) values. Results: Manual toothbrushes were used by a wide range of the sample study (65–100% among hospital wards), together with mouthwash (20–80%); interproximal aids were used by few patients (the lowest recorded value was 33.3%). Conclusion: dental hygienists could be integrated into hospital wards as oral hygiene procedure instructors, for the improvement of the oral health conditions of hospitalized patients.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.