Sonic-powered toothbrushes and reversal of experimental gingivitis

Experimental gingivitis in patients with and without altered passive eruption

BACKGROUND

Individuals with altered passive eruption (APE) are assumed to be more susceptible to periodontal diseases. To date, this hypothesis has not been sufficiently supported by scientific evidence. The aim of this study, using an experimental gingivitis model, was to examine the development and resolution of gingival inflammation in patients with APE when compared to patients with normal gingival anatomy.

METHODS

A localized experimental gingivitis was induced in 9 patients with APE (test group) and 9 patients without APE (control group) in the maxillary right quadrant. After 21 days, patients were instructed to resume proper home oral hygiene procedures. At baseline (day 0) and at days 7, 14, 21, 28, 35, and 42, plaque index (PlI), gingival index (GI), and gingival crevicular fluid volume (GCF) were evaluated for teeth 6 (canine), 7 (lateral incisor) and 8 (central incisor) of test and control groups.

RESULTS

During the experimental gingivitis phase (days 0 to 21), the rate of change in gingival inflammation (GI) was dramatically different between the APE test group and the control group. On day 21, at the time of maximum plaque accumulation, the GI of the APE test group was a 109% greater than the GI of the test group (P ≤ 0.001) despite similar plaque levels (P = 0.436). During the resolution of inflammation phase (days 22 to 42), the APE test group continued to exhibit statistically higher GI scores than the control group (P = 0.029).

CONCLUSION

In the presence of similar amounts of plaque deposits and plaque accumulation rates, APE patients exhibited differences in the development and resolution of plaque-induced gingival inflammation when compared to controls.

WITHDRAWN: Flossing for the management of periodontal diseases and dental caries in adults

BACKGROUND

Good oral hygiene is thought to be important for oral health. This review is to determine the effectiveness of flossing in addition to toothbrushing for preventing gum disease and dental caries in adults.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of flossing in addition to toothbrushing, as compared with toothbrushing alone, in the management of periodontal diseases and dental caries in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 17 October 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 4), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 17 October 2011), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 17 October 2011), CINAHL via EBSCO (1980 to 17 October 2011), LILACS via BIREME (1982 to 17 October 2011), ZETOC Conference Proceedings (1980 to 17 October 2011), Web of Science Conference Proceedings (1990 to 17 October 2011), Clinicaltrials.gov (to 17 October 2011) and the metaRegister of Controlled Clinical Trials (to 17 October 2011). We imposed no restrictions regarding language or date of publication. We contacted manufacturers of dental floss to identify trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials conducted comparing toothbrushing and flossing with only toothbrushing, in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias for the included studies and extracted data. We contacted trial authors for further details where these were unclear. The effect measure for each meta-analysis was the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random-effects models. We examined potential sources of heterogeneity, along with sensitivity analyses omitting trials at high risk of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve trials were included in this review, with a total of 582 participants in flossing plus toothbrushing (intervention) groups and 501 participants in toothbrushing (control) groups. All included trials reported the outcomes of plaque and gingivitis. Seven of the included trials were assessed as at unclear risk of bias and five were at high risk of bias.Flossing plus toothbrushing showed a statistically significant benefit compared to toothbrushing in reducing gingivitis at the three time points studied, the SMD being -0.36 (95% CI -0.66 to -0.05) at 1 month, SMD -0.41 (95% CI -0.68 to -0.14) at 3 months and SMD -0.72 (95% CI -1.09 to -0.35) at 6 months. The 1-month estimate translates to a 0.13 point reduction on a 0 to 3 point scale for Loe-Silness gingivitis index, and the 3 and 6 month results translate to 0.20 and 0.09 reductions on the same scale.Overall there is weak, very unreliable evidence which suggests that flossing plus toothbrushing may be associated with a small reduction in plaque at 1 or 3 months.None of the included trials reported data for the outcomes of caries, calculus, clinical attachment loss, or quality of life. There was some inconsistent reporting of adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is some evidence from twelve studies that flossing in addition to toothbrushing reduces gingivitis compared to toothbrushing alone. There is weak, very unreliable evidence from 10 studies that flossing plus toothbrushing may be associated with a small reduction in plaque at 1 and 3 months. No studies reported the effectiveness of flossing plus toothbrushing for preventing dental caries.

Oral and Blood Neutrophil Activation States during Experimental Gingivitis

Polymorphonuclear neutrophils (PMNs) are the primary leukocytes present in the healthy and inflamed oral cavity. While unique PMN activation states have been shown to differentiate health and periodontitis, little is known about the changes in PMN activation states that occur during the transition from periodontal health to gingivitis. The objective of this study was to characterize oral and circulatory PMNs during induction and resolution of experimental gingivitis. Healthy volunteers were recruited to undergo experimental gingivitis. Clinical assessment of pocket depths, bleeding on probing, gingival index, and plaque index, as well as flow cytometric analysis of CD (cluster of differentiation) activation markers on blood and oral PMNs, was performed weekly. All clinical parameters increased significantly during the induction period and returned to baseline levels during the resolution phase. During the induction phase, while oral PMN counts increased, oral PMN activation state based on surface expression of CD63, CD11b, CD16, and CD14 was diminished compared to those seen in health and during the resolution phase. PMNs in circulation during onset showed increased activation based on CD55, CD63, CD11b, and CD66a. Using clinical parameters and oral PMN counts assessed at day 21, we noted 2 unique disease patterns where one-third of subjects displayed an exaggerated influx of oral PMNs with severe inflammation compared to the majority of the population who experienced a moderate level of inflammation and PMN influx. This supports the notion that PMN influx and severe inflammatory changes during gingivitis could identify subjects at risk for the development of severe gingival inflammation and progression toward destructive periodontitis. This study demonstrates that oral PMN activation states are reduced in gingivitis and suggest that only in periodontitis do PMNs become hyperactivated and tissue damaging.

Knowledge Transfer Statement: Our article creates a paradigm for future studies of the evolution of essential oral and circulatory biomarkers to identify individuals at risk to develop periodontitis at an early stage of periodontal disease, which is reversible upon proper oral hygiene practices and dental treatments.

Effects of sugar-free chewing gum sweetened with xylitol or maltitol on the development of gingivitis and plaque: a randomized clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this study was to test the effect of sugar-free chewing gum sweetened with xylitol or maltitol compared to the use of a gum base or no gum on gingivitis and plaque scores under both brushing and non-brushing circumstances.

METHODS

The design of the study was a four-group, double-blinded, randomized controlled study with a 3-week duration. In each group, the participants did not brush the teeth in the lower jaw designated to develop experimental gingivitis, while maintaining normal oral hygiene procedures in the upper jaw. After professional dental prophylaxis, the participants were allocated into one of four groups (xylitol, maltitol, gum base or no gum). Chewing gum was used five times a day for 10 min.

RESULTS

220 participants completed the study and provided evaluable data. The increase in bleeding on marginal probing (BOMP) and plaque scores (PS) in the non-brushed (lower) jaw with experimental gingivitis was significant in all groups (P < 0.001). As compared to the gum base, the increase in BOMP in the xylitol and maltitol group was significantly lower. In the brushed upper jaw, no significant changes for BOMP were observed from the baseline to the end point of the study, and there were no significant differences in BOMP and PS between the groups.

CONCLUSION

In circumstances where regular brushing is performed, no effect of chewing gum was observed on bleeding and plaque scores. In the absence of brushing, chewing xylitol or maltitol gum provided a significant inhibitory effect on gingivitis scores compared to chewing gum base. The difference when compared to the group not using gum was not significant.

Flossing for the management of periodontal diseases and dental caries in adults

BACKGROUND

Good oral hygiene is thought to be important for oral health. This review is to determine the effectiveness of flossing in addition to toothbrushing for preventing gum disease and dental caries in adults.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of flossing in addition to toothbrushing, as compared with toothbrushing alone, in the management of periodontal diseases and dental caries in adults.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 17 October 2011), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2011, Issue 4), MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 17 October 2011), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 17 October 2011), CINAHL via EBSCO (1980 to 17 October 2011), LILACS via BIREME (1982 to 17 October 2011), ZETOC Conference Proceedings (1980 to 17 October 2011), Web of Science Conference Proceedings (1990 to 17 October 2011), Clinicaltrials.gov (to 17 October 2011) and the metaRegister of Controlled Clinical Trials (to 17 October 2011). We imposed no restrictions regarding language or date of publication. We contacted manufacturers of dental floss to identify trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials conducted comparing toothbrushing and flossing with only toothbrushing, in adults.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed risk of bias for the included studies and extracted data. We contacted trial authors for further details where these were unclear. The effect measure for each meta-analysis was the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using random-effects models. We examined potential sources of heterogeneity, along with sensitivity analyses omitting trials at high risk of bias.

MAIN RESULTS

Twelve trials were included in this review, with a total of 582 participants in flossing plus toothbrushing (intervention) groups and 501 participants in toothbrushing (control) groups. All included trials reported the outcomes of plaque and gingivitis. Seven of the included trials were assessed as at unclear risk of bias and five were at high risk of bias.Flossing plus toothbrushing showed a statistically significant benefit compared to toothbrushing in reducing gingivitis at the three time points studied, the SMD being -0.36 (95% CI -0.66 to -0.05) at 1 month, SMD -0.41 (95% CI -0.68 to -0.14) at 3 months and SMD -0.72 (95% CI -1.09 to -0.35) at 6 months. The 1-month estimate translates to a 0.13 point reduction on a 0 to 3 point scale for Loe-Silness gingivitis index, and the 3 and 6 month results translate to 0.20 and 0.09 reductions on the same scale.Overall there is weak, very unreliable evidence which suggests that flossing plus toothbrushing may be associated with a small reduction in plaque at 1 or 3 months.None of the included trials reported data for the outcomes of caries, calculus, clinical attachment loss, or quality of life. There was some inconsistent reporting of adverse effects.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is some evidence from twelve studies that flossing in addition to toothbrushing reduces gingivitis compared to toothbrushing alone. There is weak, very unreliable evidence from 10 studies that flossing plus toothbrushing may be associated with a small reduction in plaque at 1 and 3 months. No studies reported the effectiveness of flossing plus toothbrushing for preventing dental caries.

Different powered toothbrushes for plaque control and gingival health

BACKGROUND

Powered brushes were first introduced commercially in the 1960s. A recent systematic review suggested the superiority of certain modes of powered over manual toothbrushing for plaque and gingivitis reduction. That review did not allow for direct comparison between different modes of powered toothbrush.

OBJECTIVES

To compare different modes of powered toothbrushing against each other for plaque reduction and the health of the gingivae. Other factors to be assessed were calculus and stain removal, cost, dependability and adverse effects.

SEARCH STRATEGY

The following databases were searched: Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 26 July 2010); Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2010, Issue 3); MEDLINE via OVID (1950 to 26 July 2010); EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 26 July 2010); CINAHL via EBSCO (1982 to 26 July 2010). There were no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Trials were considered for inclusion with the following criteria: random allocation of participants; no compromised manual dexterity; unsupervised powered toothbrushing for at least 4 weeks. The primary outcomes were the plaque and gingivitis scores after powered toothbrush use during trial period.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Data extraction was performed independently and in duplicate. The authors of trials were contacted to provide missing data where possible. The effect measure for each meta-analysis was the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) using the random-effects model. Potential sources of heterogeneity were assessed.

MAIN RESULTS

The review included data from 15 trials with 1015 participants. Due to the dearth of trials assessing the same mode of action, no definitive conclusions can be stated regarding the superiority of one mode of powered toothbrush over any other. Only minor and transient side effects were reported. Cost, dependability were not reported.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Further trials of good quality are required to establish if any mode of action has superiority over the other modes of action for powered toothbrushes.

Safety of oscillating-rotating powered brushes compared to manual toothbrushes: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Oscillating-rotating power toothbrushes have been proven clinically efficacious. To our knowledge, a comprehensive review of all clinical and laboratory investigations solely comparing the safety of these toothbrushes to the standard of care (i.e., manual toothbrushes) has not been published. The aim of this systematic review is to examine the literature concerning the relative soft and/or hard tissue safety outcomes with the use of oscillating-rotating toothbrushes compared to manual toothbrushes.

METHODS

With the use of electronic databases of the National Library of Medicine (PubMed-MEDLINE), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane-CENTRAL), and the Excerpta Medical Database (EMBASE), a search of in vivo and in vitro trials through May 2010 was conducted to identify appropriate studies that evaluated the effects of an oscillating-rotating power toothbrush compared to a manual toothbrush with respect to soft and/or hard tissue safety. Eligible trials incorporated a safety evaluation as a primary or secondary outcome parameter (i.e., gingival recession, observed/reported adverse events, and hard tissue effects) or used a surrogate parameter (i.e., stained gingival abrasion and brushing force) to assess safety. Data extraction for the primary- and surrogate-measure safety studies, which included mean values and SDs when available, and a meta-analysis of the gingival recession data were performed.

RESULTS

Independent screening of the titles and abstracts of 697 PubMed-MEDLINE, 436 Cochrane-CENTRAL, and 664 EMBASE papers resulted in 35 publications that met the eligibility criteria. The mean change in gingival recession was not significantly different among toothbrush groups in the two selected trials with safety as a primary outcome (weighted mean difference: 0.03). A meta-analysis of the five trials that evaluated safety with a surrogate parameter was not possible; however, there were no significant between-group differences at the study end in any trial. A descriptive analysis of the 24 selected studies assessing safety as a secondary outcome revealed few brushing-related adverse events. The heterogeneity in objectives and methodology of the four in vitro trials that met the eligibility criteria precluded generalization of the results.

CONCLUSION

A large body of published research in the preceding 2 decades has consistently shown oscillating-rotating toothbrushes to be safe compared to manual toothbrushes, demonstrating that these power toothbrushes do not pose a clinically relevant concern to hard or soft tissues.