Treatment of infrabony defects with or without enamel matrix proteins: A 24-month follow-up randomized pilot study

Objective: To evaluate a comparison of open-flap debridement (OFD) with or without the use of enamel matrix proteins (EMP) for the treatment of infrabony defects. Method and Materials: Ten volunteers (38 infrabony defects) were randomized to receive OFD + EMP (test site) and OFD (control site). Clinical outcomes included mean changes in Plaque Index, Gingival Index, probing pocket depth (PPD), relative attachment level (RAL), gingival recession, width of keratinized tissue, and dental mobility at baseline and at 24 months. Results: A significant reduction of 4.21 +/- 0.97 mm was observed in PPD for the OFD + EMP group (from 6.30 +/- 0.99 mm to 2.09 +/- 0.97 mm) and of 3.28 +/- 1.23 mm for the OFD group (from 6.13 +/- 0.88 mm to 2.85 +/- 1.42 mm) (P < .001). The reduction in PPD was statistically significantly greater for OFD + EMP compared to OFD (P = .03). The mean RAL decreased from 13.26 +/- 1.88 mm to 7.57 +/- 2.05 mm for the OFD + EMP group (a gain of 5.69 +/- 1.96 mm) and from 13.37 +/- 1.71 mm to 8.13 +/- 1.34 min (P < .001) for the OFD group (a gain of 5.24 +/- 1.55 mm). Gingival recession was higher it) the OFD + EMP group than in the OFD group. The mean keratinized tissue significantly decreased from 4.41 +/- 1.39 mm to 3.63 +/- 1.54 mm for OFD flap group (P < .01). Conclusion: Both treatment modalities were efficient in improving RAL and PPD. Within groups, there was a significant reduction in keratinized tissue for OFD and a significant postoperative recession for the OFD + EMP group. Infrabony defects treated with OFD + EMP showed significantly more PPD reduction when compared to OFD. (Quintessence Int 2010;41:125-134)

Clinical evaluation of two packable posterior composites A five-year follow-up

Background. Research has suggested that packable resin-based composites inserted with a placement technique similar to amalgam condensation can reduce the sensitivity associated with posterior restorations. The authors evaluated the clinical performance, including associated sensitivity, of two packable composites in a randomized five-year clinical trial. Methods. A single operator randomly placed two restorations in each of 33 patients: one restoration consisting of Alert (Jeneric/Pentron, Wallingford, Conn.) and the other consisting of SureFil (Dentsply/Caulk, Milford, Del.). There were 30 Class I and 36 Class II restorations. Two independent evaluators evaluated the restorations by using modified U.S.; Public Health Service criteria. The authors analyzed data by means of the Fisher, chi(2) and McNemar tests at P < .05. Results. Of 60 restorations evaluated at five years, two Class II restorations (one SureFil, one Alert) failed. All other restorations received the highest score possible for sensitivity and vitality. The only difference between the composites at the five-year recall was the significantly better surface texture of SureFil. The authors observed significantly different scores between the baseline and at five years for marginal discoloration (Alert and SureFil), surface texture (Alert and SureFil) and color (SureFil). Conclusions. Both packable resin-based composites showed excellent durability during the five-year follow-up. Clinical Implications. The investigated resin-based composites are suitable for posterior restorations.

Domestic use of a disclosing solution for denture hygiene: a randomised trial

Objectives: The purpose of this study was to investigate the effect of the domestic use of a disclosing agent for denture hygiene. Materials and methods: Completely edentulous participants wearing maxillary dentures were randomly assigned to one of the three intervention groups: (1) Follow-up only (control; n = 12); (2) Oral and denture hygiene instructions (n = 10); (3) Instructions associated with the home use of a disclosing agent (1% neutral red; n = 10). Biofilm coverage area (%) over internal and external surfaces of the maxillary denture was assessed at baseline and after 14 and 90 days. Data were evaluated by generalised estimating equations based on score tests (alpha = 0.05). Results: The participants presented low changes for areas of biofilm coverage (14 days (%): internal: GI = 1.4 +/- 0.9; GII = 1.5 +/- 1.3; GIII = -0.4 +/- 0.9; external: GI = 1.4 +/- 1.5; GII = 1.5 +/- 1.4; GIII = -0.4 +/- 0.9; 90 days (%): internal: GI = 2.0 +/- 0.9; GII = 2.2 +/- 1.4; GIII = 0.3 +/- 1.0; external: GI = 2.1 +/- 1.4; GII = 2.2 +/- 1.5; GIII = 0.3 +/- 0.9). Changes were similar for the three groups (p = 0.293) and were not influenced by the test time (p = 0.218). Conclusion: It can be concluded that the home use of a disclosing agent for denture hygiene does not improve the removal of the biofilm, particularly for patients with adequate oral hygiene habits.

Effects of the domestic use of a disclosing solution on the denture biofilm: a preliminary study

To investigate the effect of the home use of a disclosing agent on the microbial composition of denture biofilm, by means of a cross-over randomized clinical trial. Two interventions were tested during 7 days each: (i) oral and denture hygiene instructions and (ii) instructions associated with the home use of a disclosing agent (1% neutral red). Eleven participants with visible biofilm deposits over their maxillary complete dentures were randomly assigned to one of the two sequences of interventions: (i) I followed by II, and (ii) II followed by I. A washout period of 7 days was established. After each intervention, samples of denture biofilm were evaluated by DNA checkerboard hybridization for the detection of Candida spp. and 17 bacterial species. Counts were low for all the tested species, and no significant difference was found between the tested interventions ( Wilcoxon test, P > 0.05). The home use of a disclosing agent does not remarkably change the composition of denture biofilm.