Novel PAradigm to improve Inflammatory burden in end stage Renal disease (rePAIR): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Given the importance of inflammation as a predictor of poor outcomes in End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD), reductions in inflammatory biomarkers have been proposed as a critical target in this population. This study targets chronic periodontitis, an oral inflammatory disease of microbial etiology causing persistent inflammation in ESRD. Unlike the previously reported episodic periodontal interventions, we propose to control periodontal inflammation with a continuous maintenance and oral health behavior modifications. We hypothesize that this strategy will improve systemic inflammation and oxidative stress, oral health and quality of life within the 6-month observation period. METHODS: The rePAIR (novel PAradigm to improve Inflammatory burden in ESRD) study is a pilot and feasibility, parallel-arm, and randomized controlled clinical trial that will recruit 72 ESRD subjects with periodontitis in a model of computerized block randomization. This trial aims to compare the effect of standard-of-care vs. repeated non-surgical periodontal therapy on systemic and oral inflammatory burden. This trial will recruit ESRD adult patients with periodontitis older than 21 years old with a minimum of 12 teeth and no history of periodontal treatment within a year. The trial will examine serum C-reactive protein (CRP) (primary outcome) as a biomarker of inflammation as well as interleukin-6 (IL-6), F2 isofurans and F2 isoprostanes (secondary outcomes) and compare their difference between groups from baseline to 6 months. The trial will also compare the difference between groups in patient-centered and clinical oral outcomes from baseline to 6 months. DISCUSSION: The trial follows a rigorous and transparent study design capturing elements such as pre-specified eligibility criteria, pre-specified primary and secondary outcomes, detailed intervention description to allow replication, intervention random allocation and concealment, blinding in outcome assessment, appropriate sample size calculations, explanation of interim analysis, as per CONSORT Guidelines. Further, gender diversity is secured not only at recruitment but also throughout the trial and during the analysis. Therefore, treatment response outcomes will be examined per gender category. In order to manage anticipated problems, the protocol has included alternative approaches. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03241511 . Registered on 7 August 2017.

aPDT for periodontitis treatment in ovariectomized rats under systemic nicotine.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated the antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) as an adjunctive therapy to scaling and root planning (SRP) for the treatment of experimental periodontitis (EP) in ovariectomized rats under systemic nicotine. METHODS: Female ovariectomized rats (n = 180) were divided into two groups: vehicle administration (Veh) and nicotine administration (Nic). Mini-pumps containing either vehicle or nicotine were inserted in the rats 30 days before the induction of EP, which was induced by placing a ligature around the left mandibular first molar. The rats were randomly divided into three treatment subgroups: SRP, SRP plus low-level laser therapy (LLLT), and SRP plus aPDT. aPDT consisted of the application of a phenothiazine photosensitizer followed by LLLT. Ten animals from each group were euthanized at days 7, 15, and 30 after periodontal treatment. The furcation region was evaluated using histological, histometric analyses and immunolabelling for PCNA, TRAP, RANKL, and OPG. RESULTS: Nicotine administration resulted in greater bone loss (BL). aPDT resulted in lower BL compared to SRP. aPDT showed higher quantities of PCNA-positive cells compared to SRP, regardless of the nicotine status. aPDT resulted in less recruitment of osteoclasts and lower RANKL immunolabelling compared to LLLT and SRP. CONCLUSION: aPDT was effective in animals treated with nicotine.

Akute Pankreatitis nach nicht chirurgischer Parodontaltherapie in Kombination mit systemischer Antibiotikatherapie.

Non-surgical periodontal therapy is often performed as a combinational approach using supplemental systemic amoxicillin and metronidazole. Better clinical outcomes, less need for periodontal surgery and limited systemic complications are arguments to justify such an approach. However, combination therapy with systemic antibiotic treatment is still a matter of debate due to emerging antibiotic resistance patterns. In this case report, a 61-year-old women suffering from an acute pancreatitis following systemic antibiotic combinational treatment as part of a non-surgical periodontal therapy is described. Following adequate symptomatic treatment during a hospitalization of three days, the patient recovered and periodontal conditions improved significantly thereafter. This case report illustrates a rare, but potentially serious complication when prescribing systemic combinational antibiotics in non-surgical periodontal therapy. Adequate history taking and timely diagnosis of pancreatitis if developing is important to provide relevant treatment and to avoid pancreatitis-associated complications.

Comparison to the scanning electron microscope of professional dental hygiene methods on metal-free layered structures and metal-free monolithic structures processed by different polymerization cycles.

AIM: Aim of the study was to find effective instrumental methodologies and procedures for scaling and deplaquing without compromising the structure of metal-free, monolithic lithium disilicate and layered zirconia prosthetics. METHODS: Of 14 decontaminated, extracted teeth in good anatomical condition, 7 veneers lithium disilicate monolithic and 7 layered zirconia crowns were prepared for testing and divided into 6 treatment groups. Each group was composed of a veneer and a crown. The division of the groups was carried out according to the type of treatment performed- instrumental carbon fiber and steel tips, prophylaxis paste with high and low RDA (Relative dentin abrasion), bicarbonate powder. Samples were examined and observed through a scanning electron microscope (SEM). Afterwards a detailed comparison of the images of treated and untreated samples was performed. The images were at the same magnification, thus showing the differences in the treated samples. RESULTS: The monolithic lithium disilicate presents minor damage to the surface but no excessive changes to the structure in general post treatment. The layered zirconia resulted in notable damage with evident abrasions on the layered ceramic structure after the use of ultrasound with a steel tip and air flow with bicarbonate. Carbon fibre tips and prophylaxis paste containing perlite and low RDA did not create notable changes to the properties of the materials in question. CONCLUSION: The results of the disilicate monolithic appear to show it to be a much more resistant material compared to layered zirconia in ceramic. Its resistance is demonstrated by the lack of notable damage in all the treatment groups.

Cluster headache following dental treatment: a case report.

Cluster headache is a neurovascular disorder characterized by attacks of severe and strictly unilateral pain presenting in and around the orbit and temporal area. Attacks occur in series lasting for weeks or months separated by remission periods. An individual attack lasts 15-180 min with a frequency of once every other day to as often as 8 times per day. Ipsilateral radiation of the headache to orofacial regions, including the teeth, is not unusual. The area of involvement may obscure the diagnosis and lead to irreversible and unnecessary dental treatment. A case in which cluster attacks occurred immediately after a dental procedure is described.

Subjective intensity of pain during supportive periodontal treatment using a sonic scaler or an Er:YAG laser.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the subjective intensities of pain during supportive periodontal treatment using a sonic scaler or an Er:YAG laser. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Forty patients with two residual periodontal pockets following conventional periodontal therapy were treated using a sonic scaler and an Er:YAG laser in a split-mouth design. A visual analogue scale was used for pain assessment directly after each treatment procedure. Additionally, pain was recorded during the treatment of 11 patients at intervals of 0.5 s using an inter-modal intensity comparison. RESULTS: Pain assessment during treatment showed that laser treatment (median pain score: 0.71 U, maximum: 9.94 U, minimum: 0 U) caused less pain than the sonic device (median pain score: 2.17 U, maximum: 11.26 U, minimum: 0 U) (p<0.05) with no difference in the treatment time (p>0.05). These results could be confirmed by the visual analogue scale: pain scores assessed after laser treatment (median: 1 U, maximum: 7 U, minimum: 0 U) were lower than those after sonic instrumentation (median: 3.5 U, maximum: 7.5 U, minimum: 0 U) (p<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Using an Er:YAG laser during supportive periodontal treatment, painful sensations can be reduced compared with sonic scaler instrumentation.

Dentinal hypersensitivity following scaling and root planing: comparison of low-level laser and topical fluoride treatment.

The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of low-level laser irradiation to traditional topical fluoride treatment for treatment choices of dentinal hypersensitivity following scaling and root planing. The experimental group (15 patients) was treated with low-energy-level diode laser at each site of dentinal hypersensitivity following scaling and root planning. The control group (15 patients) received topical fluoride treatment (protective varnish for desensitization). All the patients were treated at baseline visit, and then at day 2 and 4 after the initial treatment; the pain was subjectively assessed by the patients as strong, medium, medium low, low, or no pain. Total absence of the dental hypersensitivity was reported in 26.66% of the examined group even after the second visit, compared to the control group where complete resolution of the hypersensitivity was not present after the second visit in any of the treated cases. Complete absence of pain was achieved in 86.6% of patients treated with laser and only in 26.6% in the fluoride treated group, after the third visit. Based on our findings, we conclude that low-energy biostimulative laser treatment can be successfully used for treatment of dental hypersensitivity following scaling and root planing.

Evaluation of the effect of the GaAlAs laser on subgingival scaling and root planing.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the auxiliary effect of the low-intensity laser in subgingival scaling and root planing by analysis of its clinical aspects, as well as its analgesic potential during the procedure. BACKGROUND DATA: Despite the large number of studies conducted on low-intensity laser energy, few clinical studies are available on periodontics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Ten patients were selected and submitted to measurement of six sites per tooth, four teeth per hemiarch (960 sites in all). All patients then received subgingival scaling and root planing. Besides periodontal treatment, the test side was also submitted to laser application. The analysis comprised measurement of probing depth, clinical attachment level, and gingival index. Laser energy was applied at a wavelength of 780 nm (35 J/cm(2), 70 mW, 20 sec per site) for preoperative analgesia, and scaling and root planing were performed with application of laser energy at a wavelength of 780 nm (35 J/cm(2), 70 mW, 20 sec) for analgesia, and at a wavelength of 630 nm (8.8 J/cm(2), 35 mW, 10 sec) for healing. The patients filled out a visual analogue scale to assess the pain they felt during the procedure. After 24 and 48 h, the laser was again applied at the wavelength of 630 nm, and the patients were re-evaluated after 3 d. RESULTS: There was a reduction in gingival inflammation, yet without a statistically significant difference between the study and control sides, both in clinical aspects and evaluation of pain during the procedure. CONCLUSION: Utilization of the diode laser as an auxiliary in subgingival scaling and root planing did not provide any apparent clinical benefit for teeth with shallow to moderate pockets.

Pain relief after scaling and rootplaning by monochromatic phototherapy (Biolight).

The present clinical trial was designed to evaluate pain relief after scaling and rootplaning treatment, of patients with periodontal disease, by the use of monochromatic phototherapy (Mpht) (Biolight) vs. placebo. 20 randomly selected patients, 35-75 years of age, with at least ten tooth pockets, with probing depths > or = 5mm, equally shared between at least two opposite quadrants were chosen. Patients using anti-inflammatory drugs or painkillers were excluded. Scaling and rootplaning under local anaesthesia was performed by a dental hygienist, on randomly selected quadrants in all patients. Additional treatment with placebo or monochromatic phototherapy was given to the patients. The patients registered pain on a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) (100 mm) on two occasions, the first after the effect of the local anaesthetic had worn off and the second 24 hours post-treatment. The results showed that, no pain relief could be obtained after monochromatic phototherapy compared to placebo.

Quantification of patient fears regarding dental injections and patient perceptions of a local noninjectable anesthetic gel.

Data have shown that 30% of all Americans do not seek dental care and/or treatment unless a problem arises that causes them severe pain. Similar study results have been found in Europe as well. While some studies indicate that cost concerns prevent people from seeking dental care, the fear of pain has been identified as a factor in keeping people from seeing a dentist. A random sample of US and European patients who had recently undergone a scaling and root planing procedure was surveyed via telephone interview to quantify data on patient concerns and fears regarding anesthesia administered by injection, as well as to determine patient interest and price perception of an anesthetic gel product. The survey also provided data on the patient's experience and perception about the scaling and root planing procedure. Responses from the study population showed that patients find the injection painful and do not like the prolonged numbness. Additionally, based on the patients surveyed, they experience injection anxiety before appointments, and a significant number of them cancel appointments or simply do not seek treatment because they are afraid of the injection. Finally, the study also demonstrated that, while not eliminating dental anxiety completely, the availability of a new noninjectable anesthetic would assist in relieving patient fear, with almost half of the patients surveyed being more likely to seek treatment if only the new noninjectable anesthetic was used. Additionally, most patients surveyed would be willing to pay for the noninjectable anesthetic out of their own pockets if it was not covered by their health insurance.

Patient evaluation of a novel non-injectable anesthetic gel: a multicenter crossover study comparing the gel to infiltration anesthesia during scaling and root planing.

BACKGROUND: Periodontal scaling procedures commonly require some kind of anesthesia. From the patient's perspective, the choice of anesthetic method is a trade-off between the degree of anesthesia and accepting the side effects. The present study evaluates the preferences for a novel non-injection anesthetic product (a gel, containing lidocaine 25 mg/g plus prilocaine 25 mg/g and thermosetting agents) versus injection anesthesia (lidocaine 2% adrenaline) in conjunction with scaling and/or root planing (SRP). METHODS: In a multicenter, crossover, randomized, open study patients were asked, after they had experienced both products, if they preferred anesthetic gel or injection anesthesia. In addition, the adequacy of anesthesia and occurrence of post-procedure problems were assessed. The patients were also asked about their willingness to return if they were offered anesthetic gel at their next visit and their maximum willingness to pay (WTP) for this option. RESULTS: One-hundred seventy (170) patients at eight centers in Belgium were included in the study. There were 157 per protocol (PP) patients. A vast majority of the PP patients (70%) preferred the anesthetic gel to injection anesthesia (22%). The most common reason was less post-procedure numbness. Eighty percent (80%) of the patients expressed satisfactory anesthesia with the gel and 96% with injection anesthesia (P <0.001). Post-procedure problems were significantly less with the gel than with injection (P <0.001): numbness 15% versus 66%, unpleasant sensations such as soreness and pain 44% versus 63%, and problems connected with daily activities 19% versus 69%. The majority of patients (60%) who preferred gel were also willing to pay for it. A conservative estimate of the median WTP was $10.00. Furthermore, anesthetic gel would make almost every second patient (45%) more or much more willing to return for the next treatment. CONCLUSIONS: The data suggest that a somewhat less profound anesthesia with gel is clearly preferred by the patients because of the low incidence of post-procedure problems as compared to conventional injection anesthesia. The median WTP is likely in excess of the acquisition cost of the product, which indicates a favorable cost-benefit ratio for the individual patient.

Clinical study to evaluate the use of electronic anesthesia during dental hygiene procedures.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine if the 3M Dental Electronic Anesthesia System 8670 would decrease patients' pain/discomfort levels during scaling and root planing procedures. METHODS: Forty-nine patients possessing hypersensitive teeth and/or 4-6 mm periodontal pockets requiring scaling and root planing were selected as subjects. Patients received treatment using an inactive and then an active stimulator in paired quadrants. The patients scored their pain/discomfort levels after each procedure. They were contacted by telephone 1-2 days following treatment to determine if they experienced any symptoms or discomfort following electronic dental anesthesia. RESULTS: The overall results for the assessment of pain/discomfort indicated that treatment using the active stimulator resulted in significantly lower pain scores for the total patient population. CONCLUSIONS: This study found the 3M Dental Electronic Anesthesia System 8670 to be effective for controlling pain during the dental hygiene procedures specified.

An evaluation of a pre-scaling gel (SofScale) on the ease of supragingival calculus removal.

SofScale is a pre-scaling gel, containing disodium EDTA and sodium lauryl sulphate, which is claimed to soften calculus and therefore facilitate its removal. 31 subjects were treated in a double blind randomised placebo controlled split mouth study to evaluate this product. Test or placebo gels were applied to the lingual surfaces of the mandibular teeth for 4 min and the time taken to complete the removal of supragingival calculus recorded. The operator recorded on which side the calculus was considered easier to remove and the patient indicated how comfortable the scaling had been. The mean calculus index was 1.99 for the SofScale group and 1.97 for the placebo. The mean time taken to complete scaling was 5.31 min for both groups. Using the Student t-test, there were no statistically significant differences (p > 0.7) between either the calculus index or time taken to complete the scaling between the groups. The operator did not consider SofScale to facilitate calculus removal and patients did not find calculus removal more comfortable when SofScale had been used. There was no increased sensitivity in the SofScale group following scaling. The results of this study do not support the use of SofScale as an adjunct to scaling.

Efficacy of a topical anesthetic on pain and unpleasantness during scaling of gingival pockets.

The efficacy of a topical anesthetic on pain and unpleasantness provoked by scaling of gingival pockets was investigated in 20 patients with mild chronic periodontitis. A eutectic mixture of local anesthetics (EMLA) and a placebo cream, both occluded by Orahesive Oral Bandages, were applied in a balanced, randomized, double-blind, split-mouth design, which enabled within-subject comparison of the anesthetic and the placebo in the upper and the lower jaw. Pretreatment interviews showed that approximately two-thirds of the patients considered gingival scaling to be associated with some degree of pain and unpleasantness. Pain intensity and unpleasantness were evaluated on 100-mm visual analog scales (VAS). Application of EMLA reduced both pain intensity and unpleasantness significantly compared to placebo cream. Median reductions in VAS pain intensity in the upper and lower jaw were 58.9% and 61.9%, and corresponding reductions in VAS unpleasantness were 31.9% and 25.6%, respectively. Generally, the patients accepted the anesthetic procedure well. The residual perception of pain and unpleasantness following topical anesthesia may be dependent on activation of nonanesthetized nociceptive fibers in the tooth pulp. However, the present study clearly demonstrates the efficacy of a topical anesthetic in a clinical situation, which may be recommended as a simple pharmacologic strategy to reduce pain and unpleasantness during scaling procedures.

Effect of subgingival irrigation with chlorhexidine during ultrasonic scaling.

This study examines the effect of a chlorhexidine irrigant during ultrasonic scaling and root planning and compares clinical results with those obtained using a water irrigant. The irrigant was delivered either through a conventional or a recently-introduced ultrasonic scaler, which allows the irrigant solution to be passed through the inside of the scaler tip. The study utilizes a split-mouth design and contrasts the effectiveness of both instruments in improving periodontal health, as measured by standard clinical indices. A preliminary investigation of patient tolerance to treatment performed throughout the clinical trial was also undertaken. Statistical analysis at the 3 and 6 month post-treatment stage revealed no significant differences between the 4 experimental groups in respect of probing attachment levels (P > 0.5), bleeding index (P > 0.1), or plaque index (P > 0.05). Clinical attachment gain assessed by probing ranged from 0.6 to 0.9 mm. Chlorhexidine increased patient tolerance in 77% of cases and the new model ultrasonic scaler was favored over the traditional model in 70% of cases. The magnitude of the tolerance differences was however not statistically significant. The possible potential of the new scaler and of chlorhexidine as an irrigant to reduce patient discomfort is worthy of further investigation than was possible in this study.

Bacteremia following subgingival irrigation and scaling and root planing.

The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence of bacteremia after a single professional subgingival irrigation with a 0.12% chlorhexidine gluconate mouthrinse (CHX) as well as after a subsequent scaling and root planing (S/RP) during the same visit. Thirty subjects each with at least 1 site that probed 4 mm or more and bled on probing were randomly assigned to the following groups: 1) irrigation with 0.12% CHX; 2) irrigation with sterile water; and 3) non-irrigated controls. To begin the study blood was drawn just before and 2 minutes after irrigation. Thirty minutes later, blood was drawn again just before and 2 minutes after S/RP at the same site. Specimens were cultured for anaerobic and aerobic microorganisms using standard cultural techniques. Eighteen blood cultures from 15 subjects yielded positive cultures resulting in 23 isolates. Gram-positive rods comprised 34.8% of the total isolates; Gram-positive cocci 34.8%, Gram-negative rods 21.7%, and Gram-negative cocci 8.7%. In the CHX group, bacteremia was detected in 5 subjects after irrigation and in 2 other subjects after S/RP. In the water group, bacteremia was detected in one subject after irrigation and in 4 subjects after S/RP. The control group had 3 bacteremias after S/RP. There was no significant difference between the incidence of bacteremia associated with irrigation by CHX or sterile water (P = 0.141). There was also no significant difference in the incidence of bacteremia after S/RP between the CHX and sterile water irrigation groups and in patients who did not receive irrigation (control group) (P = 0.88).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)