In a standard periodontal treatment strategy with consecutive root planings (per quadrant at a one- to two-week interval), re-infection of a disinfected area might occur before completion of the treatment. This study examines, both clinically and microbiologically, whether a full-mouth disinfection within 24 hours significantly improves the outcome of periodontal treatment. Ten patients with advanced chronic periodontitis were randomly allocated to a test and a control group. The patients from the control group received scalings and root planings as well as oral hygiene instructions per quadrant at two-week intervals. Full-mouth disinfection in the test group was sought by the removal of all plaque and calculus (in two visits within 24 hours). In addition, at each of these visits, the tongue was brushed with a 1% chlorhexidine gel for one min and the mouth rinsed with a 0.2% chlorhexidine solution for two min. Furthermore, subgingival chlorhexidine (1%) irrigation was performed in all pockets. The recolonization of the pockets was retarded by oral hygiene and 0.2% chlorhexidine rinses during two weeks. The clinical parameters were recorded, and plaque samples were taken from the right upper quadrant at baseline and after one and two months. The test group patients showed a significantly higher reduction in probing depth for deep pockets at both follow-up visits (p < 0.05). At the one-month visit, differential phase-contrast microscopy revealed significantly lower proportions of spirochetes and motile rods in the test group (p = 0.01). Culturing showed that the test group harbored significantly fewer pathogenic organisms at one month (p = 0.005).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Even though it was observed that halitosis has a predominantly oral origin, a multidisciplinary approach remains necessary to identify ear, nose and throat or extra-oral pathologies and/or pseudo-halitosis/halitophobia.

These findings suggest that a one stage full-mouth disinfection results in an improved clinical outcome for the treatment of chronic adult or early-onset periodontitis as compared to scaling and root planing per quadrant at 2-week intervals.

Despite etiological differences between aggressive and chronic periodontitis, the treatment concept for aggressive periodontitis is largely similar to that for chronic periodontitis. The goal of treatment is to create a clinical condition that is conducive to retaining as many teeth as possible for as long as possible. When a diagnosis has been made and risk factors have been identified, active treatment is commenced. The initial phase of active treatment consists of mechanical debridement, either alone or supplemented with antimicrobial drugs. Scaling and root planing has been shown to be effective in improving clinical indices, but does not always guarantee long-term stability. Antimicrobials can play a significant role in controlling aggressive periodontitis. Few studies have been published on this subject for localized aggressive periodontitis, but generalized aggressive periodontitis has been subject to more scrutiny. Studies have demonstrated that systemic antibiotics as an adjuvant to scaling and root planing are more effective in controlling disease compared with scaling and root planing alone or with supplemental application of local antibiotics or antiseptics. It has also become apparent that antibiotics ought to be administered with, or just after, mechanical debridement. Several studies have shown that regimens of amoxicillin combined with metronidazole or regimens of clindamycin are the most effective and are preferable to regimens containing doxycycline. Azithromycin has been shown to be a valid alternative to the regimen of amoxicillin plus metronidazole. A limited number of studies have been published on surgical treatment in patients with aggressive periodontitis, but the studies available show that the effect can be comparable with the effect on patients with chronic periodontitis, provided that proper oral hygiene is maintained, a strict maintenance program is followed and modifiable risk factors are controlled. Both access surgery and regenerative techniques have shown good results in patients with aggressive periodontitis. Once good periodontal health has been obtained, patients must be enrolled in a strict maintenance program that is directed toward controlling risk factors for disease recurrence and tooth loss. The most significant risk factors are noncompliance with regular maintenance care, smoking, high gingival bleeding index and poor plaque control. There is no evidence to suggest that daily use of antiseptic agents should be part of the supportive periodontal therapy for aggressive periodontitis.

Bad breath (halitosis) is an important social complaint. In most cases (≥90%), the cause of halitosis can be found within the oral cavity. Under this circumstance, the term oral malodor applies. It affects both healthy and periodontally diseased individuals. Oral malodor is mainly caused by a microbial degradation of both sulfur-containing and nonsulfur-containing amino acids into volatile, bad-smelling gases. Anaerobic gram-negative bacteria, the same species that have been linked to periodontal diseases, are especially involved in this process, explaining why clinicians often associate oral malodor with periodontitis. Some volatile organic compounds render patients more susceptible to periodontitis and this supports the malodor-periodontitis link. This review investigates the interaction between oral malodor and periodontal diseases. Pro and con arguments regarding the mechanisms of halitosis and clinical implications will be presented. In general, however, the impact of tongue coatings has been found to be the dominant factor, besides gingivitis and periodontitis. The last part of this review discusses the treatment of bad breath, with different options.

The results of this study indicate that in patients with moderate periodontitis, initial periodontal therapy including tongue scraping did not have a significant effect on the microbial load of the tongue and had only a weak impact on the VSC level, except when combined with a mouthrinse. Saliva incubation can be used as an indirect way to score breath odor. It offers simplicity, objectivity, and is less invasive.

At the moment there are no clear protocols for the assessment of bad breath. An organoleptic evaluation is still the reference. To date there are several tools available to detect and quantify specific compounds related to halitosis. This paper reviews the available information on three sulphur monitors (OralChroma™ (CHM-1), Halimeter® and Breathtron®), in order to suggest guidance for the general dental practitioner. All three devices showed an acceptable correlation with organoleptic scores. The Halimeter® and Breathtron® seem the most appropriate devices for a general dental practitioner, because they are easy to handle. Because of its capacity of distinguishing between different sulphur compounds and due to its time-consuming and complicated use, the OralChroma™ (CHM-1) seems more suitable in a research environment.

196 Brånemark implants in 86 consecutive patients rehabilitated by means of overdentures (6 upper jaws, 80 lower jaws) were observed longitudinally. In each jaw, only 2 implants were used to anchor the overdenture. 2 implants in the lower jaw showed some mobility at the abutment installation and were removed immediately. During the loading period (mean loading time 19.1 months ranging from 4 to 48 months), none of the implants showed any signs of non-integration. The marginal tissue reaction and plaque accumulation were monitored using conventional indices. Clinical methods and standardized radiographs were used to evaluate the bone level and density. The numbers of approximal surfaces without plaque (40%) or with gingival inflammation (55%) were almost constant throughout the study. The probing pocket depths remained within the range of 2.7 to 3.2 mm during the observation time, whereas the distance of the gingival margin from the top of the abutment clearly increased (from 1.8 to 2.9 mm). For loaded lower jaw implants connected to each other with a straight bar, a radiographic bone loss of 0.8 mm was observed during the first postsurgical year followed by a mean annual bone loss of less than 0.1 mm. For the "sleeping" fixtures, 50% less bone loss was recorded. For loaded but not interconnected implants in the upper jaw, the bone loss during the first 6 months reached 2.0 mm. The loss in marginal bone height did not clearly correlate with parameters such as the plaque index, the gingivitis index, the presence or absence of gingiva around the abutment, or the implant length. The present data, with an observation time up to 4 years, showed that the failure rate for Brånemark implants supporting overdentures in the lower jaw can be limited to 1%. However, the use of 2 unconnected fixtures in the upper jaw cannot presently be advocated since considerable bone loss was observed.