This is a repository copy of Chlorhexidine mouthrinse as an adjunctive treatment for gingival health.
Epidemiological studies over 70 y ago provided the basis for the use of fluoride in caries prevention. They revealed the clear relation between water fluoride concentration, and therefore fluoride exposure, and prevalence and severity of dental fluorosis and dental caries. After successful trials, programs for water fluoridation were introduced, and industry developed effective fluoride-containing toothpastes and other fluoride vehicles. Reductions in caries experience were recorded in many countries, attributable to the widespread use of fluoride. This is a considerable success story; oral health for many was radically improved. While previously, water had been the only significant source of fluoride, now there are many, and this led to an increase in the occurrence of dental fluorosis. Risks identified for dental fluorosis were ingestion of fluoride-containing toothpaste, water fluoridation, fluoride tablets (which were sometimes ingested in areas with water fluoridation), and infant formula feeds. Policies were introduced to reduce excessive fluoride exposure during the period of tooth development, and these were successful in reducing dental fluorosis without compromising caries prevention. There is now a much better understanding of the public perception of dental fluorosis, with mild fluorosis being of no aesthetic concern. The advantages of water fluoridation are that it provides substantial lifelong caries prevention, is economic, and reduces health inequalities: it reaches a substantial number of people worldwide. Fluoride-containing toothpastes are by far the most important way of delivering the beneficial effect of fluoride worldwide. The preventive effects of conjoint exposure (e.g., use of fluoride toothpaste in a fluoridated area) are additive. The World Health Organization has informed member states of the benefits of the appropriate use of fluoride. Many countries have policies to maximize the benefits of fluoride, but many have yet to do so.
BackgroundThe main objectives of this study were to describe and compare the microbiota of 1) deep dentinal lesions of deciduous teeth of children affected with severe early childhood caries (S-ECC) and 2) the unstimulated saliva of these children and 3) the unstimulated saliva of caries-free children, and to compare microbiota compositional differences and diversity of taxa in these sampled sites.MethodsChildren with S-ECC and without S-ECC were recruited. The saliva of all children with and without S-ECC was sampled along with the deep dentinal microbiota from children affected by S-ECC. The salivary microbiota of children affected by S-ECC (n = 68) was compared to that of caries-free children (n = 70), by Illumina MiSeq sequencing of 16S rRNA amplicons. Finally, the caries microbiota of deep dentinal lesions of those children with S-ECC was investigated.ResultsUsing two beta diversity metrics (Bray Curtis dissimilarity and UniFrac distance), the caries microbiota was found to be distinct from that of either of the saliva groups (caries-free & caries-active) when bacterial abundance was taken into account. However, when the comparison was made by measuring only presence and absence of bacterial taxa, all three microbiota types separated. While the alpha diversity of the caries microbiota was lowest, the diversity difference between the caries samples and saliva samples was statistically significant (p < 0.001). The major phyla of the caries active dentinal microbiota were Firmicutes (median abundance value 33.5%) and Bacteroidetes (23.2%), with Neisseria (10.3%) being the most abundant genus, followed by Prevotella (10%). The caries-active salivary microbiota was dominated by Proteobacteria (median abundance value 38.2%) and Bacteroidetes (27.8%) with the most abundant genus being Neisseria (16.3%), followed by Porphyromonas (9.5%). Caries microbiota samples were characterized by high relative abundance of Streptococcus mutans, Prevotella spp., Bifidobacterium and Scardovia spp.ConclusionsDistinct differences between the caries microbiota and saliva microbiota were identified, with separation of both salivary groups (caries-active and caries-free) whereby rare taxa were highlighted. While the caries microbiota was less diverse than the salivary microbiota, the presence of these rare taxa could be the difference between health and disease in these children.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12903-018-0693-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Background/Aims: Currently available techniques for fluoride analysis are not standardized. Therefore, this study was designed to develop standardized methods for analyzing fluoride in biological and nonbiological samples used for dental research. Methods: A group of nine laboratories analyzed a set of standardized samples for fluoride concentration using their own methods. The group then reviewed existing analytical techniques for fluoride analysis, identified inconsistencies in the use of these techniques and conducted testing to resolve differences. Based on the results of the testing undertaken to define the best approaches for the analysis, the group developed recommendations for direct and microdiffusion methods using the fluoride ion-selective electrode. Results: Initial results demonstrated that there was no consensus regarding the choice of analytical techniques for different types of samples. Although for several types of samples, the results of the fluoride analyses were similar among some laboratories, greater differences were observed for saliva, food and beverage samples. In spite of these initial differences, precise and true values of fluoride concentration, as well as smaller differences between laboratories, were obtained once the standardized methodologies were used. Intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.90 to 0.93, for the analysis of a certified reference material, using the standardized methodologies. Conclusion: The results of this study demonstrate that the development and use of standardized protocols for F analysis significantly decreased differences among laboratories and resulted in more precise and true values.
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.