The influence of gingival stimulation on recovery from human experimental gingivitis

Abstract

The present study concerns an investigation carried out to determine the effects of gingival stimulation on the resolution of a human experimental gingivitis. 10 young male dental students participated in the experiment. Following the baseline examination (day 0), the participants were instructed to abstain from all oral hygiene procedures during a 21-day period. Heavy plaque accumulation and gingivitis developed during the 21-day induction period. On the evening of the 21st day, active oral hygiene measures were reinstitued, for an 8-day period, using 2 different methods. For the left side of the maxillary arch, a hygiene procedure including gingival stimulation was prescribed. On the other hand, for the right side, a hygiene method without gingival stimulation was instituted. On both sides of the upper arch, the gingival condition was assessed by means of the gingival index, and soft deposits were assessed by the plaque index (selected teeth: 13, 14, 15, 23, 24, 25). Measurements were performed on days 0, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29. On day 29, ideal oral hygiene conditions and gingival health were re-established on both sides. However, a statistical analysis of the data collected during the recovery period revealed that gingival index scores were temporarily, but significantly, higher on the side where mechanical stimulation was performed, although plaque deposits there decreased more rapidly. Thus the present work supports the idea that gingival stimulation does not in any way improve recovery from experimental gingivitis.

Effect of mechanical toothbrush stimulation on gingival microcirculatory functions in inflamed gingiva of dogs

“…The effects of gingival stimulation on the resolution of gingivitis remains controversial. Gingival massage without plaque removal in monkeys improved gingival inflammation, determined by visible gingival index (Uchiyama 1978) and histometric analysis (Komori et al, 1981); gingival stimulation did not improve gingivitis recovery in humans when the gingival condition was assessed using the gingival index (Bonfil et al, 1985). The results of the present study, using gingival microcirculatory function as parameters, clearly demonstrate that mechanical stimulation with a toothbrush contributes to recovery from gingival inflammation, Altenatively, the contradictory results may be derived from the method of use of the toothbrush employed for gingival stimulation.…”