Treatment of dentinal hypersensitivity using low-level laser therapy and 5% potassium nitrate: A randomized, controlled, three arm parallel clinical study.

AIM: The present randomized study was aimed to compare the efficacy 5% potassium nitrate (KNO3) toothpaste, low-level laser therapy (LLLT), and LLLT with 5% KNO3 toothpaste in the treatment of dentinal hypersensitivity (DH). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Total of 45 patients complaining of DH with visual analog scale (VAS) score being ≥2 were recruited and were divided into three groups. Group A was treated with 5% KNO3 toothpaste, Group B using LLLT along with the application of 5% KNO3 toothpaste, and Group C using LLLT alone. VAS scores were recorded at the baseline, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd weeks by the examiner who is blinded toward the treatment. The sensitivity response was evaluated using air spray and tactile sensation (explorer). RESULTS: A greater reduction of DH was recorded at the end of 3 weeks in Group C and Group B when compared to Group A. Better results were noted in Group C at the end of the 1st week when compared to Group B. According to this study, there was no additional benefit of using toothpaste along with LLLT. CONCLUSION: A greater reduction of DH was recorded at the end of 3 weeks in Group C and Group B when compared to Group A. Better results were noted in Group C at the end of the 1st week when compared to Group B. According to this study, there was no additional benefit of using toothpaste along with LLLT.

Assessment of Periodontal Health Status in Smokers and Smokeless Tobacco Users: A Cross-Sectional Study.

INTRODUCTION: Oral smokeless tobacco consumption has been considered as a major risk factor for oral cancer, its role as a risk factor for periodontal disease is less well documented when compared to that of relationship between smoking and periodontal disease. AIM: The aim of the present cross-sectional study was to evaluate the effect of various forms of tobacco consumption i.e., smoking and smokeless tobacco forms on periodontal status. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study population included 120 subjects with the habit of tobacco consumption, based on form of tobacco use they were divided into Group 1 (smoking), Group 2 (Smokeless tobacco), and Group 3 (smokers and smokeless tobacco users). The periodontal status for each group was evaluated by measuring Oral Hygiene Index- Simplified (OHI-S) and Community Periodontal Index (CPI) for Probing Depth (CPI-PD) and Attachment Loss (CPI-AL). RESULTS: OHI-S mean scores in Group 1 (3.53±1.03), Group 2 (3.06±0.92) and Group 3 (3.45±0.96) were similar, which were not statistically significant (p>0.076). The mean values of CPI-PD were 3.75±0.44 in Group 1, 3.65±0.48 in Group 2, 3.80±0.41 in Group 3 with no significant difference between the three Groups (p> 0.309). When the mean values of CPI-AL (0.95±0.75 in Group 1, 1.40±0.74 in group 2, and 1.55±0.60 in Group 3) were compared in between the Groups, a statistically significant difference was observed in Group 3 (p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The results showed that tobacco consumption in both forms caused poor periodontal status, with smokeless tobacco users having more amount of attachment loss than smokers.

Association of yoga practice and serum cortisol levels in chronic periodontitis patients with stress-related anxiety and depression.

AIM: Reducing the psychosocial stress by various methods can improve overall health, and yoga is now considered as an easily available alternative method. The present cross-sectional pilot study was conducted mainly to find the association of yoga practice with periodontal disease by measuring serum cortisol levels. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 70 subjects with age range of 35-60 years suffering with chronic periodontitis were divided into group I (with stress), group II (without stress), and group III (practicing yoga). Psychological evaluation was carried out using Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A) and Zung Self-rating Depression Scale (ZSDS). Periodontal parameters like plaque index (PI), probing pocket depth (PPD), and clinical attachment level (CAL) at 5-8 mm and >8 mm were recorded. Blood samples were collected and serum cortisol levels were measured. RESULTS: Mean age, plaque scores, and number of teeth with PPD and CAL at 5-8 mm and >8 mm were similar in all the groups, except between group I and group III where a multiple comparison with Tukey's post-hoc test showed significant difference in plaque index (P < 0.038) and the number of teeth with CAL 5-8 mm (P < 0.016). Serum cortisol levels and HAM-A scale and ZSDS scores showed highly significant value (P < 0.001) in group I subjects when compared with group II and group III subjects. CONCLUSION: Cross-sectional observation done among three groups showed that individuals practicing yoga regularly had low serum cortisol levels, HAM-A scale and ZSDS scores, and better periodontal health.

Evaluation of Periodontal Risk in Adult Patients using Two Different Risk Assessment Models - A Pilot Study.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the periodontal risk of individuals using periodontal risk assessment (PRA) model and modified PRA model. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 50 patients with chronic periodontitis, age 30-60 years were selected randomly and charting of the periodontal status was performed and those who met the inclusion criteria were enrolled in the study. Parameters recorded were- percentage of sites with bleeding on probing (BOP), number of sites with pocket depths (PD) ≥ 5mm, number of the teeth lost, bone loss (BL)/age ratio, Clinical attachment loss(CAL)/age ratio, diabetic and smoking status, dental status, systemic factors like diabetes were assessed. All the risk factors were plotted on the radar chart in (PRA) and (mPRA) models, using Microsoft excel and periodontal risk were categorized as low, moderate and high risk. RESULTS: Among 50 patients 31 were in low risk, 9 in moderate risk, and 10 in high risk identified by modified (PRA) model, whereas 28 patients were in low risk, 13 in moderate risk and 9 in high risk identified by (PRA). Statistical analysis demonstrated that there was no significant difference between the risk scores (X(2) = 0.932 with degree of freedom = 2, P = 0.627). CONCLUSION: Both the periodontal risk models are effective in evaluating the risk factors and can be useful tool for predicting proper diagnosis, disease progression and therapeutic strategies during the supportive periodontal therapy.