No abstract

This study depicts the effects of ETS on gingival melanin pigmentation.

ObjectiveThe study aimed to evaluate the microbial contamination and plaque scores of nanogold‐coated and uncoated toothbrushes.MethodsThis study was designed as a single‐centre, parallel, examiner‐blinded, randomized, two‐group clinical trial. Eighty‐four participants were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive either a nanogold or uncoated toothbrush. Basic periodontal therapy was performed for all the recruited subjects, and plaque scores of zero were considered baseline values. All participants were instructed to follow a twice‐daily brushing regimen without dentifrice and to refrain from other oral hygiene care during the one‐week study period. Plaque levels were assessed after one week using the Turesky modification of the Quigley‐Hein Plaque Index (TMQHPI). The bristles were tested for microbial contamination by viable cell counting. The recorded data were statistically analysed, and a P‐value of <.05 was accepted as statistically significant.ResultsAfter one week of brushing without using toothpaste, the mean plaque index scores were 0.37 ± 0.07 in the nanogold group and 0.58 ± 0.10 in the uncoated group. A significant difference in the mean plaque scores was observed between the groups (P < .001). The mean colony‐forming unit (CFU) was 21 ± 48.8 for the nanogold‐coated group and 100 ± 128.4 for the uncoated group. The difference in the mean CFUs observed between the groups was significant (P = .014).ConclusionThe use of a nanogold‐coated toothbrush demonstrated significantly lower bristle contamination and lower plaque scores after one week compared with uncoated toothbrushes without using dentifrice.

Honey has antibacterial action against tested oral microorganisms and also has antiplaque action.

The glycemic status of the children affects the periodontal disease parameters. Salivary alkaline phosphatase levels could be a useful tool in analyzing periodontal status of children with uncontrolled type I diabetes mellitus.

Background:To evaluate the efficacy of 15% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA)-S (EDTA with soft soap) preparation for the removal of smear layer at human root surfaces.Materials and Methods:Twenty teeth indicated for extraction due to periodontal disease were sectioned using high speed cylindrical bur under copious irrigation. The root surfaces were instrumented with Gracey 7-8 curette (Hu-Friedy), 12 times to induce an “experimental smear layer”. Following root planning, the root surface was cut using diamond disc and separated from the crown. Samples were randomly distributed into five groups. One group was control, saline and test groups were EDTA 15% alone, by active and passive applications (groups 2 and 3), and EDTA 15%+soft soap, by active and passive applications (groups 4 and 5). Specimens were then subjected to scanning electron microscope study. Smear layer removal was evaluated according to Sampaio et al., index.Results:EDTA-S removed the smear layer better than plain EDTA and the control group, while active application of the root conditioning agent had significant difference than the passive application of the agent.Conclusion:EDTA-S has favorable benefits over EDTA alone, and active application is better in comparison with passive application of root conditioning agent.Clinical Relevance:Removal of smear layer has been considered as an important step in periodontal regenerative therapy. Scaling and root planning alone with saline irrigation does not remove the smear layer. EDTA is a commonly used root conditioning agent in periodontal therapy. The addition of a detergent to EDTA proved to remove smear layer more efficiently than EDTA alone.

The aim of this study is to compare the periodontal status and quantify Porphyromonas gingivalis (Pg) and Prevotella intermedia (Pi) from plaque samples of both gestational diabetic mellitus (GDM) and non diabetic pregnant women. Materials and methods Sixty first time pregnant women were selected after adjusting for age, duration of pregnancy and educational status. They were then categorized into gestational diabetic women (GDM) (Group A) and healthy pregnant women (non GDM) (Group B). Periodontal examination was done by assessing gingival index, periodontal disease index and probing depth. Microbial analysis on sub-gingival plaque was performed using polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Statistical analysis was done by student t test, chi square test and Fischer exact test. Results Group A showed higher gingival index, probing depth and periodontal disease index scores than group B at p < 0.001. Pg was detected in 80% of group A and 40% of group B. Amongst these; it was measured over 2.0 × 10 4 in 33% of group A, while in the group B it never scored more than 1.0 × 10 4. While Pi were also detected in 73% of group A women and 40% Group B women but quantification showed Pi > 2.0 × 10 4 in more number of group A women. Conclusion This study showed that there is significant association between the severity of periodontal disease and increased levels of Pg and Pi in gestational diabetic women.

These data suggest that the type of delivery system could significantly influence the outcome of therapy.