Can Desensitizing Toothpastes Also Have an Effect on Gingival Inflammation? A Double-Blind, Three-Treatment Crossover Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Many desensitizing toothpastes exist commercially; however, few clinical trials have investigated their anti-inflammatory effects. This study aimed to evaluate the anti-inflammatory effect and patient appreciation of two toothpastes containing desensitizing agents: (1) a zinc-carbonate-hydroxyapatite nanoparticle (CHA) and (2) a calcium sodium phosphosilicate bioactive glass (CSPS). METHODS: CHA and CSPS were compared with an anti-inflammatory and antibacterial herbal based toothpaste (HB). The aims were accomplished by comparing the following outcomes: (1) the reduction in plaque and bleeding score (Full Mouth Plaque Score (FMPS) and Full Mouth Bleeding Score (FMBS), respectively); (2) the antibacterial activity (AbA) of the toothpaste by saliva samples; (3) the patient appreciation score (Visual Analogue Scale; VAS). Clinical parameters were assessed at baseline and 14 days post-treatment. RESULTS: The final sample consisted of 25 subjects, aged between 20 and 58 years. Although no differences in FMPS were reported (p > 0.05), both desensitizing toothpastes showed an improvement in FMBS. CSPS and HB recorded more AbA compared to CHA (p < 0.05). Moreover, HB resulted in a higher VAS score than both desensitizing toothpastes (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: In conclusion, only CSPS displayed a similar anti-inflammatory effect compared to HB. Despite the low VAS score, CSPS could be considered as a valid and effective toothpaste in subjects with both dentin hypersensitivity and inflamed gums, highlighting its utility in clinical practice.

The effect of miniaturized manual versus mechanical instruments on calculus removal and root surface characteristics: An in vitro light microscopic study.

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate by light microscopy analysis the effect of the use of miniaturised piezoelectric tips versus mini-five area specific curets on calculus removal and postoperative root surface alterations. Methods: A total of 20 extracted teeth were used. Two square surfaces (5×5 mm) were marked on each root surface with a diamond bur mounted on a high-speed handpiece. Before and after instrumentation, a series of magnified images (4.2×) of each experimental surface were taken with a standardized approach. According to a randomization list, the two surfaces on each sample were instrumented in a standardised fashion either with a mine-five curet or a slim piezoelectric tip. The images were processed using an imaging software. Data were summarised as means and standard deviations for the two outcomes (calculus and alterations.) at each time (pre and post) for both of the groups (manual and mechanical). Results: Both manual and mechanical instrumentation significantly reduced the calculus deposits (p < .001) without significant differences between the two groups. Both manual and mechanical treatments significantly increased alterations (p < .01). There was a statistically significant evidence of a greater increase in alterations from mechanical treatment. Conclusions: Slim mechanical piezoelectric tips and manual mini-five area-specific curets have similar effects on calculus removal. Manual instrumentation results in a more homogeneous postoperative root surface with less root alterations.

The impact of smoking and previous periodontal disease on peri-implant microbiota and health: a retrospective study up to 7-year follow-up.

AIM: To evaluate the impact of smoking and previous periodontal disease on peri-implant microbiota and health in medium to long-term maintained patients. METHODS: A retrospective evaluation of partial edentulous patients restored with dental implants and enrolled in a regular supportive therapy was performed. Inclusion criteria were: medium to long-term periodontal and implant maintenance (at least 5 years), a minimum of 2 implants placed in each patient, absence of systemic diseases that may affect osseointegration. 30 implants in 15 patients were included in the study. Subjects were divided in smokers or non-smokers and between patients previously affected by periodontal disease and periodontally healthy. Peri-implant and periodontal parameters were assessed (PD,BoP, mPI). Microbiological samples were collected around implant and an adjacent tooth. Real- Time Polymerase Chain Reaction (RT-PCR) analysis was performed. RESULTS: In all the three groups no differences in bacterial counts between dental and implant sites were observed. Non smoker, healthy patients: healthy clinical parameters, significant counts of spirochetes in isolated patients. Non smokers with previous periodontal disease: occasional positive BoP values, significant high counts of pathogenic bacteria. Smokers with previous periodontal disease: clinical signs of inflammation including deep pockets and slight bone resorption, significant counts of pathogenic bacteria. CONCLUSIONS: Over a follow-up of 5 to 7 years, it is possible to state that the absence of smoking habit and previous periodontal disease positively influences the peri-implant microbiological and clinical conditions in partial edentulous patients restored with dental implants and enrolled in a strict regular supportive therapy.