Regenerative potential of leucocyte- and platelet-rich fibrin. Part B: sinus floor elevation, alveolar ridge preservation and implant therapy. A systematic review.

AIM: To analyse the effect of leucocyte- and platelet-rich fibrin (L-PRF) on bone regeneration procedures and osseointegration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An electronic and hand search was conducted in three databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane). Only randomized clinical trials, written in English where L-PRF was applied in bone regeneration and implant procedures, were selected. No follow-up restrictions were applied. RESULTS: A total of 14 articles were included and processed. Three subgroups were created depending on the application: sinus floor elevation (SFE), alveolar ridge preservation and implant therapy. In SFE, for a lateral window as well as for the trans-alveolar technique, histologically faster bone healing was reported when L-PRF was added to most common xenografts. L-PRF alone improved the preservation of the alveolar width, resulting in less buccal bone resorption compared to natural healing. In implant therapy, better implant stability over time and less marginal bone loss were observed when L-PRF was applied. Meta-analyses could not be performed due to the heterogeneity of the data. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the lack of strong evidence found in this systematic review, L-PRF might have a positive effect on bone regeneration and osseointegration.

Periodontal diseases as a source of halitosis: a review of the evidence and treatment approaches for dentists and dental hygienists.

Bad breath (halitosis) is an important social complaint. In most cases (≥90%), the cause of halitosis can be found within the oral cavity. Under this circumstance, the term oral malodor applies. It affects both healthy and periodontally diseased individuals. Oral malodor is mainly caused by a microbial degradation of both sulfur-containing and nonsulfur-containing amino acids into volatile, bad-smelling gases. Anaerobic gram-negative bacteria, the same species that have been linked to periodontal diseases, are especially involved in this process, explaining why clinicians often associate oral malodor with periodontitis. Some volatile organic compounds render patients more susceptible to periodontitis and this supports the malodor-periodontitis link. This review investigates the interaction between oral malodor and periodontal diseases. Pro and con arguments regarding the mechanisms of halitosis and clinical implications will be presented. In general, however, the impact of tongue coatings has been found to be the dominant factor, besides gingivitis and periodontitis. The last part of this review discusses the treatment of bad breath, with different options.

The role of toothpastes in oral malodor management.

One out of four people suffers from persistent bad breath. In most of the cases, the cause can be found in the mouth, with the presence of tongue coating as the leading factor, followed by gingivitis and periodontitis, and it is referred to as oral malodor. Because oral malodor is the result of the degradation of organic substrates by anaerobic bacteria of the oral cavity, the management is mostly done by masking the odorous compounds or eliminating the cause (bacteria and their substrates) either mechanically or chemically. Toothpaste formulations have been modified to carry antimicrobial and oxidizing agents with an impact on the process of oral malodor formation. We performed extensive literature search regarding the effect of dedicated toothpastes in the management of oral malodor. The main characteristics of the in vitro and in vivo investigations and their most relevant findings are presented for discussion. Even though the amount of publications regarding this topic is far smaller than for others such as caries, plaque control and whitening, antibacterial ingredients such as triclosan and metal ions like stannous and zinc appear to be effective in the control of oral malodor. On the other hand, data supporting the use of hydrogen peroxide, baking soda, essential oils and flavors in the management of oral malodor are rather few and inconclusive.

Efficacy of different mouthrinse formulations in reducing oral malodour: a randomized clinical trial.

AIMS: The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of mouthrinses formulations in oral malodour. MATERIAL & METHODS: This single-centre, double-blind, randomized, parallel group clinical trial compared the efficacy of Halita™ and meridol(®) with and without zinc lactate versus negative and positive control. Volunteers with confirmed oral malodour (18/group) rinsed with one mouthrinse during 7 days (15 ml, 2x/day for 1 min.). 15 min. after a first rinse (masking effect), and after 7 days (therapeutic effect) the change in organoleptic scores and level of sulphur compounds was recorded. RESULTS: All rinses showed a masking effect (OLS 1 to 2 values reduced), only the rinses with antimicrobial ingredients showed a therapeutic effect (OLS 1 to 1.5 value less). The addition of zinc resulted in a more pronounced masking effect. Halita™ and meridol(®) with zinc showed the best therapeutic effect. CONCLUSION: Although the masking effect of the rinses can be attributed partially to a dilution and the effect of aromas, the therapeutic effect should be linked to the anti-microbial action of active ingredients and counter action of zinc ions on VSC. A complete resolution of the unpleasant breath by additional mechanical intervention remains to be proven.

Periodontal regeneration with enamel matrix derivative in reconstructive periodontal therapy: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Enamel matrix derivative (EMD) is commonly used in periodontal therapy. The aim of this systematic review is to give an updated answer to the question of whether the additional use of EMD in periodontal therapy is more effective compared with a control or other regenerative procedures. METHODS: A literature search in MEDLINE (PubMed) for the use of EMD in periodontal treatment was performed up to May 2010. The use of EMD in treatment of intrabony defects, furcations, and recessions was evaluated. Only randomized controlled trials with ≥1 year of follow-up were included. The primary outcome variable for intrabony defects was the change in clinical attachment level (CAL), for furcations the change in horizontal furcation depth, and for recession complete root coverage. RESULTS: After screening, 27 studies (20 for intrabony defects, one for furcation, and six for recession) were eligible for the review. A meta-analysis was performed for intrabony defects and recession. The treatment of intrabony defects with EMD showed a significant additional gain in CAL of 1.30 mm compared with open-flap debridement, EDTA, or placebo, but no significant difference compared with resorbable membranes was shown. The use of EMD in combination with a coronally advanced flap compared with a coronally advanced flap alone showed significantly more complete root coverage (odds ratio of 3.5), but compared with a connective tissue graft, the result was not significantly different. The use of EMD in furcations (2.6 ± 1.8 mm) gave significantly more improvement in horizontal defect depth compared with resorbable membranes (1.9 ± 1.4 mm) as shown in one study. CONCLUSIONS: In the treatment of intrabony defects, the use of EMD is superior to control treatments but as effective as resorbable membranes. The additional use of EMD with a coronally advanced flap for recession coverage will give superior results compared with a control but is as effective as a connective tissue graft. The use of EMD in furcations will give more reduction in horizontal furcation defect depth compared with resorbable membranes.

Effect of mouthrinses on Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans biofilms in a hydrodynamic model.

The aim of the study was to evaluate the effects of Listerine, Meridol, and Perioaid on the viability and total number of bacteria in established biofilms using an in vitro model under hydrodynamic conditions. Biofilms of Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans were placed in a modified Robbins device and rinsed twice daily during 4 days. Bacteria were quantified by culture and quantitative polymerase chain reaction. Visualization of the samples was performed by scanning electron and confocal laser scanning microscopy, combined with a fluorescent vital staining. All three mouthrinses caused a significant reduction in the number of cultivable A. actinomycetemcomitans in a biofilm. Perioaid was significantly the most powerful in killing the biofilm-protected bacteria and also in counteracting the development of thick dense microbial communities. The total amount of bacteria was not significantly affected by Listerine and Meridol.