Controlled toothbrush abrasion of softened human enamel

The aim of this in vitro study was to compare toothbrush abrasion of softened enamel after brushing with two (soft and hard) toothbrushes. One hundred and fifty-six human enamel specimens were indented with a Knoop diamond. Salivary pellicle was formed in vitro over a period of 3 h. Erosive lesions were produced by means of 1% citric acid. A force-measuring device allowed a controlled toothbrushing force of 1.5 N. The specimens were brushed either in toothpaste slurry or with toothpaste in artificial saliva for 15 s. Enamel loss was calculated from the change in indentation depth of the same indent before and after abrasion. Mean surface losses (95% CI) were recorded in ten treatment groups: (1) soft toothbrush only [28 (17-39) nm]; (2) hard toothbrush only [25 (16-34) nm]; (3) soft toothbrush in Sensodyne MultiCare slurry [46 (27-65) nm]; (4) hard toothbrush in Sensodyne MultiCare slurry [45 (24-66) nm]; (5) soft toothbrush in Colgate sensation white slurry [71 (55-87) nm]; (6) hard toothbrush in Colgate sensation white slurry [85 (60-110) nm]; (7) soft toothbrush with Sensodyne MultiCare [48 (39-57) nm]; (8) hard toothbrush with Sensodyne MultiCare [40 (29-51) nm]; (9) soft toothbrush with Colgate sensation white [51 (37-65) nm]; (10) hard toothbrush with Colgate sensation white [52 (36-68) nm]. Neither soft nor hard toothbrushes produced significantly different toothbrush abrasion of softened human enamel in this model (p > 0.05).

Efficacy of patient-administered mechanical and/or chemical plaque control protocols in the management of peri-implant mucositis. A systematic review

AIM To systematically assess the efficacy of patient-administered mechanical and/or chemical plaque control protocols in the management of peri-implant mucositis (PM). MATERIAL AND METHODS Randomized (RCTs) and Controlled Clinical Trials (CCTs) were identified through an electronic search of three databases complemented by manual search. Identification, screening, eligibility and inclusion of studies was performed independently by two reviewers. Studies without professional intervention or with only mechanical debridement professionally administered were included. Quality assessment was performed by means of the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias. RESULTS Eleven RCTs with a follow-up from 3 to 24 months were included. Definition of PM was lacking or heterogeneously reported. Complete resolution of PM was not achieved in any study. One study reported 38% of patients with complete resolution of PM. Surrogate end-point outcomes of PM therapy were often reported. The choice of control interventions showed great variability. The efficacy of powered toothbrushes, a triclosan-containing toothpaste and adjunctive antiseptics remains to be established. High quality of methods and reporting was found in four studies. CONCLUSIONS Professionally- and patient-administered mechanical plaque control alone should be considered the standard of care in the management of PM. Therapy of PM is a prerequisite for the prevention of peri-implantitis.

Primary prevention of peri-implantitis: managing peri-implant mucositis

AIMS Over the past decades, the placement of dental implants has become a routine procedure in the oral rehabilitation of fully and partially edentulous patients. However, the number of patients/implants affected by peri-implant diseases is increasing. As there are--in contrast to periodontitis--at present no established and predictable concepts for the treatment of peri-implantitis, primary prevention is of key importance. The management of peri-implant mucositis is considered as a preventive measure for the onset of peri-implantitis. Therefore, the remit of this working group was to assess the prevalence of peri-implant diseases, as well as risks for peri-implant mucositis and to evaluate measures for the management of peri-implant mucositis. METHODS Discussions were informed by four systematic reviews on the current epidemiology of peri-implant diseases, on potential risks contributing to the development of peri-implant mucositis, and on the effect of patient and of professionally administered measures to manage peri-implant mucositis. This consensus report is based on the outcomes of these systematic reviews and on the expert opinion of the participants. RESULTS Key findings included: (i) meta-analysis estimated a weighted mean prevalence for peri-implant mucositis of 43% (CI: 32-54%) and for peri-implantitis of 22% (CI: 14-30%); (ii) bleeding on probing is considered as key clinical measure to distinguish between peri-implant health and disease; (iii) lack of regular supportive therapy in patients with peri-implant mucositis was associated with increased risk for onset of peri-implantitis; (iv) whereas plaque accumulation has been established as aetiological factor, smoking was identified as modifiable patient-related and excess cement as local risk indicator for the development of peri-implant mucositis; (v) patient-administered mechanical plaque control (with manual or powered toothbrushes) has been shown to be an effective preventive measure; (vi) professional intervention comprising oral hygiene instructions and mechanical debridement revealed a reduction in clinical signs of inflammation; (vii) adjunctive measures (antiseptics, local and systemic antibiotics, air-abrasive devices) were not found to improve the efficacy of professionally administered plaque removal in reducing clinical signs of inflammation. CONCLUSIONS Consensus was reached on recommendations for patients with dental implants and oral health care professionals with regard to the efficacy of measures to manage peri-implant mucositis. It was particularly emphasized that implant placement and prosthetic reconstructions need to allow proper personal cleaning, diagnosis by probing and professional plaque removal.

Effectiveness of tooth wipes in removing babies' dental biofilm

PURPOSE To assess the effectiveness of tooth wipes in removing dental biofilm from babies' anterior teeth, as well as to evaluate the babies' behaviour and the guardians' preference concerning hygiene methods. MATERIALS AND METHODS In this random blind cross-over study, 50 high caries risk babies, from 8 to 15 months old, were divided into two groups: babies with oral hygiene performed by caregivers (n = 25) or by their mothers (n = 25). The caregivers and mothers removed biofilm using three methods of oral hygiene (tooth wipes, toothbrushes and gauze), one in each experimental phase. Professional cleaning was done before each phase, which had 2 days of biofilm accumulation and 1 experimental day, when caregivers and mothers used one method to remove biofilm. Examiners blinded to the study design assessed the biofilm index at baseline, prior to and following biofilm removal using each method. The babies' behaviour and the mothers'/caregivers' preference were assessed. RESULTS The tooth wipes, toothbrushes and gauze significantly reduced the amount of biofilm (P < 0.001). The mothers' group removed more biofilm than the caregivers' group, using toothbrushes or tooth wipes (P < 0.05). Babies in the mothers' group had better behaviour using tooth wipes than toothbrushes (P < 0.05). Mothers and caregivers preferred to use tooth wipes. CONCLUSIONS Tooth wipes are effective in removing biofilm from babies' anterior teeth and are the method best accepted by mothers, caregivers and babies.