RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Periodontal phenotype is regarded to be one of the key factors influencing the efficacy of restorative therapies in dental practice. The objective of the systematic review was to explore the importance of thin and thick periodontal phenotypes and how they affect the outcome of periodontal and restorative therapies by looking at a number of academic publications from various online databases. METHODS: Following the PRISMA guidelines (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review standards), relevant data will be searched and retrieved from three significant scientific databases, including PubMed, EBSCO, and Scopus. The articles with full texts that matched the keywords and published in English between 2018 and 2023 were taken into consideration. RESULTS: The majorities of these articles were based on the type of periodontal phenotype and their impact on periodontal and restorative treatment outcomes were selected. The initial search yielded a total of 530 articles. Only 273 were relevant to the review's objectives, and these were considered for determining eligibility. Only 20 publications were eligible for analysis. CONCLUSION: Understanding these anatomical aspects of periodontal phenotype is crucial to both periodontology and restorative dentistry. The clinical outcome of restorative, prosthetic, orthodontic, surgical, and periodontal therapies is determined in large part by the periodontal phenotype, which also plays a significant role in clinical failure or success in dental treatments. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study protocol registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) dated 16th June 2023 with the registration ID CRD42023432568.
Assuntos
Assistência Odontológica , Periodontia , Humanos , Bases de Dados Factuais , FenótipoRESUMO
BACKGROUND: Propolis is a natural resinous substance collected by honeybees, chiefly from buds and the leaves, branches, and bark of trees. Its role as a wound-healing gel has been studied, but the use of a propolis hydrogel in the treatment of dentinal hypersensitivity has not been evaluated. Dentin hypersensitivity (DH) is commonly treated via iontophoresis using fluoridated desensitizers. The aim of the present study was to compare and evaluate the effects of a 10% propolis hydrogel, 2% sodium fluoride (NaF), and 1.23% acidulated phosphate fluoride (APF) when used in conjunction with iontophoresis for the treatment of cervical dentin hypersensitivity (DH). METHODS: Systemically healthy patients complaining of DH were selected for this single-centre, parallel, double-blind randomized clinical trial. Three substances were selected as desensitizers for study in the present trial: a 10% propolis hydrogel, 2% sodium fluoride, and 1.23% acidulated phosphate fluoride, all in conjunction with iontophoresis. Any decrease in DH following the application of specific stimuli was assessed at baseline, before and after application, on the 14th day following use, and on the 28th day following the intervention. RESULTS: Intra-group comparisons show diminished values of DH at maximum post-op follow-up intervals which were significantly trimmed down from the baseline (p < 0.05). The 2% NaF demonstrated a significant reduction in DH over 1.23% APF and the 10% propolis hydrogel (p < 0.05). However, there was no statistically significant difference in the mean difference between the APF and propolis hydrogel groups assessed via tactile, cold, and air tests (p > 0.05). CONCLUSION: All three desensitizers have proved to be useful when used in conjugation with iontophoresis. Within the limitations of this study, a 10% propolis hydrogel can be used as a naturally occurring alternative to commercially available fluoridated desensitizers.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: A variety of prophylactic materials are used in the dental office for the removal of stains and calculus. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate tooth surface changes caused by the application of air abrasive powders (sodium bicarbonate, SBAP and glycine air powder, GPAP) along with scaling and root planing (SRP), under atomic force microscope (AFM) and to analyze the histological soft tissue changes caused by these agents, using light microscopy. METHODS: This study was conducted in two phases: in vitro and in vivo. In the in vitro phase, hard tissue analysis was done under AFM following air powder polishing. Eighteen extracted teeth were chosen. SRP and tooth sectioning were carried out. Subsequently, each section of the tooth was mounted on a glass plate with self-cure acrylic resin and air polished using SBAP and GPAP. In the vivo phase, the soft tissue was analyzed under a light microscope for surface roughness. A biopsy specimen was taken from patients who had received phase I therapy, and flap surgery was planned using a modified Widman flap technique. RESULTS: This study compared surface changes in enamel and cementum, under AFM, as indicated by RA after SRP, SRP and SBAP, and SRP and GPAP; comparisons were then drawn across the three groups. The mean AFM values were 108.5 and 144.7, 102.7 and 81.7, and 95.6 and 7.4, at the crown and root, for SRP, SRP and SBAP, and SRP and GPAP interventions, respectively. GPAP was the least rough on soft tissues. CONCLUSION: SBAP and GPAP were better than hand instrumentation as indicated by AFM and histological section analysis.