Distribution of dental plaque and gingivitis within the dental arches

Abstract

ObjectiveThe natural accumulation of supragingival plaque on surfaces of human teeth is associated with gingival inflammation and the initiation of common oral diseases. This study evaluated the distribution of dental plaque and gingivitis scores within the dental arches after prophylaxis.MethodsAdult subjects from the Dharwad, India area representing the general population who provided written informed consent were scheduled for screening. Healthy subjects over the age of 18 years, not currently requiring any medical or dental care, and presenting with a complement of at least 20 natural teeth were recruited for this parallel design study. Enrolled subjects (n = 41) underwent oral examinations for dental plaque (PI) and gingivitis (GI) using the Turesky modification of the Quigley-Hein and the Löe-Silness Index, respectively, at the baseline visit, followed by a whole mouth dental prophylaxis. Subjects were given fluoride toothpaste for twice daily oral hygiene for the next 30 days. Subjects were recalled on days 15 and 30 for PI and GI examinations identical to baseline.ResultsAnalyses indicated that mean scores for PI and GI on either arch and the whole mouth were higher than 2 and 1, respectively, during all examinations. Anterior surfaces consistently exhibited lower PI scores than posterior regions of either arch, or the entire dentition. Regional GI differences within the dentition were similar to PI scores, with lower scores on anterior than posterior teeth. Prophylaxis reduced both the frequency and mean scores of both PI and GI, irrespective of arch, with lower scores observed on anterior than posterior regions during all recall visits. Molar and lingual regions consistently exhibited higher PI and GI scores compared with anterior surfaces. At all examinations, mean scores for both plaque and gingivitis were higher on approximal vestibular than mid-vestibular surfaces.ConclusionsDifferences observed in PI and GI within the dentition have several practical implications: (a) there are advantages of whole mouth assessments for oral health (b) a need for oral hygiene formulations to reduce the larger deposits of dental plaque in the posterior region and resultant gingival inflammation, and (c) a requirement for ongoing oral hygiene education.

Risk Factors related to Late Failure of Dental Implant—A Systematic Review of Recent Studies

“…A significant association finding could be due to posterior teeth being subjected to threefold-higher occlusal forces than the anterior teeth [37]. Posterior regions are also known to be at a higher risk of dental plaque accumulation compared to anterior regions [38] and plaque accumulation is associated with gingival inflammation and the initiation of several oral diseases that could lead to failure of dental implant.…”

Self-reported oral status and habits related to oral care in adult Poles: A questionnaire study

“…Studies have shown that plaque accumulation is greater on lingual surfaces of teeth and on molars in comparison with anterior teeth. 2,3 Supragingival plaque is also more common on interproximal surfaces of teeth than on vestibular surfaces. In order to reduce the retention of plaque in interdental spaces, it is necessary to use daily additional accessories, such as dental floss and interdental brushes.…”

<p>Efficacy of a Hybrid Toothbrush versus Comparative Manual Toothbrush for Plaque Removal – Randomized In-Use Study</p>

“…The difference between the two approaches was even more marked at the more difficult to access lingual level, where a mean plaque index reduction of 71% was observed with the hybrid PTB versus 58% with the MTB (p=0.0048). Since posterior sites have been found to be areas prone to gingival inflammation and periodontal disease, 30 specific plaque scoring was performed on the first and second molars. After only seven days of twice daily use, the hybrid PTB proved to be significantly better than the manual one in terms of plaque reduction and this difference was even more evident after 14 days (respectively −59% versus −42%; p=0.0001).…”