Association of Salivary Helicobacter pylori Infection with Oral Diseases: a Cross-sectional Study in a Chinese Population.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to detect the prevalence of oral H.pylori among adults and to investigate the correlation between H.pylori infection and common oral diseases. STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional study was performed among adults Chinese who took their annual oral healthy examination at The First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, China. RESULTS: The study included 1050 subjects in total and oral H.pylori infection occurred in 60.29% of the subjects. The prevalence rates of oral H.pylori in patients with periodontal diseases (63.42%) and caries (66.91%) were significantly increased than those without oral diseases (54.07%), respectively (P < 0.05), while the difference between subjects with recurrent aphthous stomatitis and controls was not significant. In addition, the differences of positive rates of H.pylori with or without history of gastric ulcer were statistically significant (69.47% vs 58.26%, P<0.05). Presenting with periodontal diseases (OR 1.473;95% CI 1.021 to 2.124), caries (OR 1.717; 1.127 to 2.618), and having history of gastric ulcer (OR 1.631; 1.164 to 2.285) increased the risk of H.pylori infection. CONCLUSIONS: Oral H.pylori infection is common in adult Chinese, which is significantly associated with oral diseases including periodontal diseases and caries.

Application of substrate utilization patterns and terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis to characterize the oral bacterial community of healthy subjects and patients with periodontitis.

Understanding the association between the bacterial community and oral health status is essential for the diagnosis and therapy of periodontal diseases. The aim of the present study was to apply three methods [conventional culture, substrate utilization using the MicroResp™ system and terminal restriction fragment length polymorphism (T-RFLP)] to investigate the oral bacterial community in saliva from 20 healthy subjects and 20 patients with periodontitis. The three methods all revealed that there was a systematic change in the microbial ecological characteristics associated with oral health status. Compared with the control group, the oral bacterial flora in the patients with chronic periodontitis had a greater culturable population and altered preferred carbon source and TRFLP patterns. TRFLP analysis was found to give more information and exhibit a higher sensitivity than the substrate utilization and conventional culture methods. In conclusion, TRFLP analysis is a potentially rapid method to assess the composition of the oral microbial community and for the diagnosis of chronic periodontitis.

A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled study of the efficacy of Clinpro XT varnish and Gluma dentin desensitizer on dentin hypersensitivity.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effect of Clinpro XT Varnish (VXT) paste-liquid, resin-modified glass-ionomer and the resinous dentin desensitizing varnish and Gluma Dentin Desensitizer (Gluma) in treating dentin hypersensitivity (DH). METHODS: This short-term (4-week) randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, split-mouth study included a total of 119 teeth from 31 individuals which were randomized into three groups: VXT, Gluma, and placebo (warm water). Dentin sensitivity was evaluated by subjects' perception of DH determined by pretreatment tooth sensitivity score (TSS) measured on a 0-10 visual analogue scale (VAS) after tactile (probe) or thermal/evaporative (blast of air) stimuli. TSS was scored at baseline, immediately after treatment (Day 0), after 1 week and after 4 weeks. RESULTS: For both stimuli, mean TSS was significantly decreased in the VXT and Gluma groups at all time points (all, P < 0.001) compared with baseline. Regarding comparisons of TSS between treatment groups, the VXT group had significantly lower mean TSS compared with the Gluma group (P< 0.05) and placebo control group (P< 0.05) at all time points after treatment regardless of stimuli. Group Effect, Time Effect, and Group x Time Effect were all significantly different (all, P < 0.001).