Efficacy of a water flosser compared to an interdental brush on gingival bleeding and gingival abrasion: A 4 week randomized controlled trial.

AIM: To determine the efficacy of a water flosser (WF) compared to an interdental brush (IDB) in reducing gingival inflammation. Additionally, the products were compared on the incidence of gingival abrasion. METHODS: Young adults with moderate gingivitis and ≥4 accessible interdental spaces by IDB in each quadrant were selected for this study. Participants were randomly assigned a WF or an IDB as an adjunct to manual toothbrushing. Clinical signs of inflammation were measured in two randomly assigned contralateral quadrants by bleeding on pocket probing (BOPP) or bleeding on marginal probing (BOMP). Gingival Abrasion Score (GAS) was assessed per quadrant. Data was recorded at the baseline, 2 weeks and 4 weeks. RESULTS: Both groups WF (n = 40) and IDB (n = 38) showed a significant reduction (p = 0.000) in BOMP and BOPP from the baseline to 4 weeks for all sites and the interdental sites only. At 4 weeks the WF group compared to the IDB group showed significantly lower BOPP (p = 0.030) and BOMP scores (p = 0.003) for all sites. For the interdental sites WF showed compared to IDB for BOMP significant (p = 0.019) lower values but not for BOPP (p = 0.219). There were no differences between the groups for GAS at any time point. CONCLUSION: In patients with moderate gingivitis, after 4 weeks use the WF is more effective than the IDB in obtaining marginal gingival health.

Cross-angled versus flat-trim bristle tuft configurations in manual toothbrushes: A systematic review.

AIM: This systematic review synthesizes and evaluates the literature regarding the effect of manual toothbrushes (MTBs) with cross-angled bristle tufts (CA-TB) compared to flat-trim (FT-TB) configurations on plaque scores and parameters of gingival health in adult patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PubMed-MEDLINE and Cochrane-CENTRAL databases were searched, from their insertion up to August 1st, 2023, to detect appropriate papers. Clinical trials involving adult patients without periodontitis who performed self-brushing were eligible for inclusion. Primary outcome parameters included plaque, bleeding, and gingival scores. Secondary outcomes encompassed signs of soft and hard tissue abnormalities. A descriptive analysis was conducted. When feasible, a meta-analysis was performed using either the 'fixed' or 'random effects' model, as appropriate. RESULTS: Nine eligible papers were retrieved, presenting 20 comparisons. There was considerable heterogeneity in the clinical and methodological design aspects of the included studies. In the descriptive analysis, eight out of 12 comparisons demonstrated a difference in plaque removal performance in favour of the CA-TB. However, data regarding bleeding and gingival index scores were inconclusive. A meta-analysis was performed on plaque, bleeding, and gingival index scores, including different indices used for scoring. The meta-analysis of short-term studies showed a medium effect statistically significant difference in the reduction of plaque scores in favour of the CA-TB (SMD = 0.75; 95% CI (0.51; 0.99)), but this was not substantiated in longer-term studies (SMD = -0.06; 95% CI(-0.44; 0.31)). No adverse events were described in any group. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of the present study design, short-term evaluations, as assessed with various plaque indices, show a weak certainty in favour of the cross-angled toothbrush over the flat-trim toothbrush. However, based on longer-term evaluations, there is insufficient support due to the inconsistent outcomes of the analysis.

Microbiological status at intake in relation to clinical periodontal status at intake and the response to non-surgical periodontal therapy-A retrospective analysis.

AIM: Retrospective analysis of subgingival microbiological data at intake in relation to the clinical periodontal status at intake and following non-surgical periodontal treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were obtained from a population that consisted of patients diagnosed with moderate-to-severe periodontitis who had undergone non-surgical periodontal treatment between 2016 and 2020. The presence and number of eight selected putative periodontal pathogens [Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans (Aa), Porphyromonas gingivalis (Pg), Prevotella intermedia (Pi), Tannerella forsythia (Tf), Parvimonas micra (Pm), Fusobacterium nucleatum (Fn), Treponema denticola (Td) and Filifactor alocis (Fa)] at intake and the percentage of teeth and sites with PPD >5 mm at intake and after treatment were extracted. Correlations within collected data were analysed with adjustment for multiple comparisons. Sub-analyses were performed based on gender, age, and smoking and diabetic status. RESULTS: Six hundred and sixty-one patients could be included. The percentage of teeth with PPD >5 mm and the percentage of sites with PPD >5 mm at intake were significantly correlated to Pi, Tf, Pm, Fn and Fa. Patients with higher numbers of these pathogens at intake had a better treatment response. Those patients with higher numbers of Aa had a lower percentage of teeth and sites with PPD >5 mm at intake. Those with higher numbers of Aa also showed a smaller decrease in the percentage of sites with PPD >5 mm. CONCLUSION: The clinical periodontal status at intake and the response to treatment showed a weak but significant positive relationship for Pi, Tf, Pm, Fn and Fa. Conversely, higher numbers of Aa at intake were associated with more localized periodontitis and a reduced treatment response.

The efficacy of powered toothbrushes: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

AIM: This systematic review and network meta-analysis synthesizes the available clinical evidence concerning efficacy with respect to plaque scores following a brushing action with oscillating-rotating (OR) or high-frequency sonic (HFS) powered toothbrushes (PTB) compared with a manual toothbrush (MTB) as control. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Databases were searched up to 1 August 2021, for clinical trials that evaluated the efficacy of a PTB with OR or HFS technology compared with an MTB on plaque removal after a single-brushing action and conducted with healthy adult patients. Meta-analysis (MA) and a network meta-analysis (NMA) were performed. RESULTS: Twenty-eight eligible publications, including 56 relevant comparisons, were retrieved. The overall NMA results for the mean post-brushing score showed a statistically significant difference for the comparison between an OR PTB and an MTB (SMD = -0.43; 95% CI [-0.696;-0.171]). The change in plaque score data showed a significant effect of a PTB over an MTB and OR over HFS. Based on ranking, the OR PTB was highest, followed by the HFS PTB and the MTB. CONCLUSION: Within the limitations of the present study design, based on the outcome following a single-brushing action, it can be concluded that for dental plaque removal, there is a high certainty for a small effect of a PTB over an MTB. This supports the recommendation to use a powered toothbrush for daily plaque removal. There is moderate certainty for a very small benefit for the use of a powered toothbrush with an OR over an HFS mode of action.

SARS-CoV-2 TEST OUTCOMES AMONG DENTISTS AND DENTAL HYGIENISTS WITH COVID-19-LIKE COMPLAINTS - A RETROSPECTIVE ANALYSIS FROM THE NETHERLANDS.

OBJECTIVE: This retrospective analysis aimed to evaluate, among individuals with COVID-19-like symptoms, the percentage of SARS-CoV-2 positive oral health care workers relative to health care workers in general and a non-close-contact occupation reference group in the Netherlands. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data was retrospectively analyzed based on data extracted from the CoronIT database. This contained mass testing data for those experiencing symptoms compatible with COVID-19 recorded from June 2020 up to February 2021. The total number of tests taken and the number of SARS-CoV-2 positive tests were assessed. Sub-analyses were performed for oral health care and health care workers based in professional working locations, long-term care facilities, hospitals, or elsewhere. RESULTS: In total, data from 1,999,390 tests were obtained. Overall, 9.4% tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 in the three occupational groups. This was 9.2% for oral health care workers, 9.5% for health care workers, and 9.3% for the non-close-contact occupation reference group. For the three occupational groups the adjusted odds ratio with the month as covariate varied from 0.76 to 1.12. The odds ratio for oral health care workers compared to health care workers was 1 [95% CI:0.95;1.05] and 0.97 [95% CI:0.92;1.02] compared to the non-close-contact occupation reference group. Interpretation of the magnitude of the odds ratio indicates that the observed differences are none to very small. CONCLUSION: During the pandemic oral health care providers were required to adhere to the COVID-19-specific amendments to the national infection control guidelines. Based on the data gathered, dentists and dental hygienists with COVID-19-like symptoms do not test SARS-CoV-2 positive more often than other health care workers or those with a non-close-contact occupation. This supports the assumption that working during the pandemic using the Dutch standard hygiene guideline supplemented with the COVID guideline for oral health care is adequately safe.

Contemporary practices for mechanical oral hygiene to prevent periodontal disease.

It is well established that dental plaque on teeth leads to gingivitis and periodontitis, and that several mechanical and chemical methods of plaque control can prevent gingivitis. The aim of the current review is to summarize and synthesize the available scientific evidence supporting practices for mechanical oral hygiene to prevent periodontal diseases. Evidence for contemporary practices of mechanical oral hygiene to prevent periodontal disease relies on studies of gingivitis patients. General recommendations concerning the ideal oral hygiene devices and procedures are still inconclusive. However, toothbrushing and interdental cleaning remain the mainstays of prevention of periodontal diseases. The primary approach requires individually tailored instruction for implementation of a systematic oral hygiene regimen.

Mechanical plaque removal of periodontal maintenance patients: A systematic review and network meta-analysis.

AIM: This systematic review synthesizes the available clinical evidence concerning efficacy of mechanical oral hygiene devices in periodontal maintenance patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Three databases were searched up to October 2019 for clinical trials conducted in adult patients in periodontal maintenance which evaluated the effect of toothbrushes or an interdental device on plaque removal and parameters of periodontal diseases. Descriptive analysis and network meta-analysis (NMA) were performed. RESULTS: Sixteen eligible publications, including 17 relevant comparisons, were retrieved. Four out of five comparisons found no clinical difference between a manual and power toothbrush. Of the interdental cleaning devices, the interdental brushes (IDBs) reduced plaque scores more effectively than a manual toothbrush alone. For the oral irrigator, two out of three comparisons indicated a positive effect on gingivitis scores, and probing pocket depth. The NMA demonstrated that for plaque removal the adjuvant use of IDBs was significantly more effective than the manual toothbrush alone. For the reduction of gingival inflammation, no product ranked higher than the manual toothbrush. CONCLUSION: Due to the scarcity of studies that met the inclusion criteria for each of the oral hygiene devices and the low certainty of the resultant evidence, no strong "evidence-based" conclusion can be drawn concerning any specific oral hygiene device for patient self-care in periodontal maintenance.

How effective is a powered toothbrush as compared to a manual toothbrush? A systematic review and meta-analysis of single brushing exercises.

OBJECTIVES: In adult participants, what is, following a single brushing exercise, the efficacy of a powered toothbrush (PTB) as compared to a manual toothbrush (MTB) on plaque removal? METHODS: MEDLINE-PubMed and Cochrane-CENTRAL were searched from inception to February 2019. The inclusion criteria were (randomized) controlled clinical trials conducted in human subjects ≥18 years of age, in good general health and without periodontitis, orthodontic treatment, implants and/or removable prosthesis. Papers evaluating a PTB compared with a MTB in a single brushing exercise were included. When plaque scores were assessed according to the Quigley-Hein plaque index (Q&HPI) or the Rustogi modified Navy plaque index (RMNPI). From the eligible studies, data were extracted. A meta-analysis and subanalysis for brands and mode of action being oscillating-rotating (OR) and side-to-side (SS) were performed when feasible. RESULTS: Independent screening of 3450 unique papers resulted in 17 eligible publications presenting 36 comparisons. In total, 28 comparisons assessed toothbrushing efficacy according to the Q&HPI and eight comparisons used the RMNPI. Results showed a significant effect in favour of the PTB. The difference of Means (DiffM) was -0.14 (P < 0.001; 95%CI [-0.19; -0.09]) for the Q&HPI and -0.10 (P < 0.001; 95%CI [-0.14; -0.06]) for the RMNPI, respectively. The subanalysis on the OR mode of action showed a DiffM -0.16 (P < 0.001; 95%CI [-0.22, -0.10]) for the Q&HPI. For the SS mode of action using RMNPI, the DiffM showed -0.10 (P < 0.001; 95%CI [-0.15; -0.05]). The subanalysis for brands showed for the P&G OR PTB using the Q&HPI a DiffM of -0.15 (P < 0.001; 95%CI [-0.22; -0.08]) and the Colgate SS for RMNPI showed a DiffM of -0.15 (P < 0.001; 95%CI [-0.18; -0.12]). CONCLUSION: There is moderate certainty that the PTB was more effective than the MTB with respect to plaque removal following a single brushing exercise independent of the plaque index scale that was used.

Tongue coating in relationship to gender, plaque, gingivitis and tongue cleaning behaviour in systemically healthy young adults.

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this observational study was to investigate the relationship between tongue coating (thickness [Tc] and surface discoloration [Td]) and gender, plaque, gingivitis (bleeding on marginal probing [BOMP] and bleeding on pocket probing [BOPP]) and tongue cleaning behaviour. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 336 participants were screened for this cross-sectional study, from which 268 (150 male, 118 female) were found to be eligible. Aspects of tongue coating were visually assessed. Additionally, BOMP, BOPP and the plaque index (PI) were scored. To ascertain the tongue cleaning behaviour, the Oral Hygiene Behavior questionnaire was used. RESULTS: Most tongue coating was found at the posterior sections of the tongue surface. A thin coating and white discoloration were most prevalent as highest score for both males (92.7%) and females (87.4%), as well as white discoloration for the whole group of participants (50.2%). A gender difference was observed for TC and Td (P < .001). Analysis did not reveal a relationship between Tc and PI and between Td and PI. Also, no relation was detected between tongue cleaning behaviour and Tc or Td. However, tongue cleaning was associated with lower BOMP and BOPP scores. CONCLUSION: BOMP, BOPP or PI score did not appear to be linked to Tc and Td. A significant gender difference was found for Tc and Td. Self-reported tongue cleaning behaviour was associated with slightly lower BOMP and BOPP scores.

Does chlorhexidine mouthwash, with an anti-discoloration system, reduce tooth surface discoloration without losing its efficacy? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate whether chlorhexidine mouthwash (CHX-MW), with an anti-discoloration system(ADS), is effective in preventing extrinsic tooth surface discoloration. Additionally, this paper seeks to evaluate whether CHX combined with an ADS maintains its efficacy with respect to reducing plaque and gingivitis scores. MATERIAL AND METHODS: MEDLINE-PubMed and Cochrane-Central were searched up to October 2018 to identify eligible studies. Papers evaluating the effect of CHX-MW+ADS compared to CHX without an ADS were included. A descriptive analysis and when feasible a meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS: Screening resulted in 13 eligible publications, presenting 16 comparisons. Six of these evaluated the MW in a non-brushing model and ten as an adjunct to toothbrushing. A descriptive analysis demonstrated that the majority showed no differences in bleeding, gingivitis and plaque scores. This was confirmed by the meta-analysis. In non-brushing experiments, the difference-of-means (DiffM) for plaque scores was 0.10 (P = 0.45, 95%CI: [-0.15; 0.34]) and for the gingival index 0.04 (P = 0.15,95%CI: [-0.02; 0.11]). The DiffM in brushing studies for plaque scores was 0.01 (P = 0.29, 95%CI: [-0.01; 0.02]) and for the gingival index 0.00 (P = 0.87,95%CI: [-0.05; 0.06]). With respect to staining scores, the meta-analysis revealed that in non-brushing studies, the standardized mean difference was 3.19 (P = 0.0005,95%CI: [-3.98; -1.41]) while in brushing studies, the DiffM was 0.12 (P = 0.95,95%CI: [-3.32; 3.55]). CONCLUSION: There is moderate quality evidence from non-brushing studies that the addition of an ADS to CHX-MW reduces tooth surface discoloration and does not appear to affect its properties with respect to gingival inflammation and plaque scores. In brushing studies, there is also moderate quality evidence that ADS does not affect the anti-plaque and anti-gingivitis efficacy of CHX. The majority of comparisons and the meta-analysis including these indicate no significant effect of ADS on tooth staining in situations where the mouthwash is used in addition to toothbrushing.

Plaque control and reduction of gingivitis: The evidence for dentifrices.

This paper focuses on plaque control and the management of gingivitis in adults and summarizes the evidence of commercially available dentifrices as gathered from existing systematic reviews. Three internet sources were used to search for appropriate papers (up to and including February 2017). The search strategy was designed to include any systematic review published on dentifrices that also included an evaluation of plaque and gingivitis scores. Characteristics of the individual reviews, such as methodological aspects, quantitative data and conclusions, were extracted. The potential risk of bias was estimated and the acquired evidence was graded. Independent screening of 205 unique reviews resulted in 10 published and eligible systematic reviews. One publication evaluated the mechanical contribution of dentifrice to plaque removal. Eight papers were identified that evaluated the efficacy of a proposed single active ingredients, of which two reviewed more than one potentially active ingredient. One study compared two active ingredients. This meta-review appraised the current state of evidence and found that toothbrushing with a standard fluoride dentifrice does not provide an added effect for the mechanical removal of dental plaque. Evidence suggests that compared with a standard dentifrice, those containing triclosan or stannous fluoride have benefits with respect to gingival health and control of dental plaque.

Success of non-surgical periodontal therapy in adult periodontitis patients: A retrospective analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the results of active non-surgical treatment in patients diagnosed with adult periodontitis treated in a specialized clinic for periodontology. MATERIAL & METHODS: In total, 1182 patients with adult periodontitis received active non-surgical therapy, which involved professional oral hygiene instruction, scaling and root planing, supragingival polishing and elective systemic antimicrobial medication. The results of this therapy were based on a full-mouth periodontal chart as assessed at the time of evaluation. Successful treatment as periodontal pocket depth (PPD) ≤5 mm was the main outcome parameter with bleeding on pocket probing as secondary outcome. Patient-related factors such as smoking and severity of periodontitis at baseline and site-related factors such as tooth type, furcation involvement and endodontic treatment were analysed. Possible relations with assessed parameters and the success of active periodontal therapy were evaluated. RESULTS: Overall 39% of the patients reached the successful treatment objective and a mean bleeding on pocket probing tendency of 14%. Treatment success appeared to be dependent on tooth type where the results at single-rooted front teeth (85%) and premolar teeth (78%) were more successful than at molar teeth (47%). Analysis revealed that in 55% of the cases furcation involvement at molars was associated with the absence of success. Endodontic treatment was associated with absence of success in 8%-11% of the cases. Smoking negatively influences successful treatment outcome (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Active non-surgical periodontal therapy in patients with adult periodontitis resulted in approximately one third of the cases in the success endpoint of PPD ≤ 5mm. Sub-analysis showed that the outcome appeared to be dependent on tooth type, furcation involvement, severity of periodontal disease at intake and smoking status.

Prevalence of diabetes mellitus in people clinically diagnosed with periodontitis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of epidemiologic studies.

OBJECTIVES: Diabetes mellitus and periodontitis are complex chronic diseases with an established bidirectional relationship. This systematic review evaluated in subjects with professionally diagnosed periodontitis the prevalence and odds of having diabetes. METHODS: The MEDLINE-PubMed, CENTRAL and EMBASE databases were searched. Prevalence of diabetes mellitus among subjects with periodontitis was extracted or if possible calculated. RESULTS: From the 803 titles and abstracts that came out of the search, 27 papers met the initial criteria. Prevalence of diabetes was 13.1% among subjects with periodontitis and 9.6% among subjects without periodontitis. Based on subanalysis, for subjects with periodontitis, the prevalence of diabetes was 6.2% when diabetes was self-reported, compared to 17.3% when diabetes was clinically assessed. The highest prevalence of diabetes among subjects with periodontitis was observed in studies originating from Asian countries (17.2%, n = 18,002) and the lowest in studies describing populations from Europe (4.3%, n = 7,858). The overall odds ratio for patients with diabetes to be among subjects with periodontitis as compared to those without periodontitis was 2.27 (95% CI [1.90;2.72]). A substantial variability in the definitions of periodontitis, combination of self-reported and clinically assessed diabetes, lack of confounding for diabetes control in included studies introduces estimation bias. CONCLUSIONS: The overall prevalence and odds of having diabetes are higher within periodontitis populations compared to people without periodontitis. Self-reported diabetes underestimates the prevalence when compared to this condition assessed clinically. Geographical differences were observed: the highest diabetes prevalence among subjects with periodontitis was observed in studies conducted in Asia and the lowest in studies originating from Europe.

Socio-behavioural aspects in the prevention and control of dental caries and periodontal diseases at an individual and population level.

AIM: Aim was to systematically review behavioural aspects in the prevention and control of dental caries and periodontal diseases at individual and population level. MATERIAL & METHODS: With regard to caries, MEDLINE/PubMed was searched on three subheadings focusing on early childhood, proximal and root caries. For periodontal diseases, a meta-review on systematic reviews was performed; thus, the search strategy included specific interventions to change behaviour in order to perform a meta-review on systematic reviews. After extraction of data and conclusions, the potential risk of bias was estimated and the emerging evidence was graded. RESULTS: Regarding early childhood, proximal and root caries, 28, 6 and 0 papers, respectively, could be included, which predominantly reported on cohort studies. Regarding periodontal diseases, five systematic reviews were included. High evidence of mostly high magnitude was retrieved for behavioural interventions in early childhood caries (ECC), weak evidence for a small effect in proximal caries and an unclear effect of specific informational/motivational programmes on prevention of periodontal diseases and no evidence of root caries. CONCLUSION: Early childhood caries can be successfully prevented by population-based preventive programmes via aiming at the change in behaviour. The effect of individual specific motivational/informational interventions has not yet been clearly demonstrated neither for the prevention of caries nor for periodontal diseases.

Does dentifrice use help to remove plaque? A systematic review.

AIMS: The aim of this systematic review was to establish the efficacy of brushing with and without a dentifrice for dental plaque removal. MATERIALS AND METHODS: MEDLINE-PubMed, Cochrane-CENTRAL, EMBASE and other electronic databases were searched. The inclusion criteria were randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials and subjects ≥18 years of age with good general health. Studies that evaluated the effect of toothbrushing with a dentifrice compared to brushing without a dentifrice were included. Data were extracted from the eligible studies, and a meta-analysis was performed where feasible. RESULT: The search was conducted until June 2016 and retrieved 10 eligible publications that included 20 comparisons. On average, 49.2% of plaque was removed when brushing was performed with a dentifrice, and 50.3% of plaque was removed when toothbrushing was performed without a dentifrice. The descriptive analysis indicated that the majority of the comparisons did not show an additional effect of dentifrice use. Regarding the meta-analysis of post-brushing scores, no significant difference was observed between toothbrushing with and without a dentifrice (DiffM 0.00, 95%CI [-0.05: 0.05], p = 0.91). The meta-analysis of incremental data (as means or percentages) supported and strengthened these findings. CONCLUSION: The cumulative evidence for this systematic review demonstrates that there is moderate certainty that toothbrushing with a dentifrice does not provide an added effect for the mechanical removal of dental plaque.

Efficacy of homecare regimens for mechanical plaque removal in managing gingivitis a meta review.

FOCUSED QUESTION: Based on evidence as presented in systematic reviews what is the efficacy and safety of available homecare toothbrush regimens for mechanical plaque removal on plaque and gingivitis in adults? MATERIAL & METHODS: Three Internet sources were used (up to and including August 2014) to search for appropriate papers that satisfied the study purpose. Plaque scores and gingivitis scores were considered to be the primary parameter of interest. Safety was considered an important facet in relation to efficacy. Data and conclusions as presented in the selected papers were extracted. The potential risk of bias was estimated and the emerging evidence was graded. RESULTS: Independent screening of 176 unique reviews resulted in 10 published and eligible systematic reviews. They were categorized into one review evaluating the effect of an oral hygiene instruction with a toothbrush on plaque and gingivitis scores, five evaluating the efficacy of manual and power toothbrushes and three reviews evaluating toothbrush safety and one evaluating toothbrush contamination. CONCLUSION: Tooth brushing is effective in reducing levels of dental plaque. With respect to gingivitis power toothbrushes have a benefit over manual toothbrushes. The greatest body of evidence was available for oscillating-rotating brushes. Tooth brushing generally can be considered safe for the teeth and their investing tissues.

Treatment of oral malodour. Medium-term efficacy of mechanical and/or chemical agents: a systematic review.

FOCUSED QUESTION: What is the effect of a dentifrice (DF), a mouthwash (MW), tongue cleaning (TC), or any combination of these as adjunct to toothbrushing on intra-oral malodour and tongue coating as compared to toothbrushing alone in systemically healthy patients, when used for a minimum follow-up period of 2 weeks? MATERIAL AND METHODS: The MEDLINE-PubMed, Cochrane-CENTRAL and EMBASE databases were searched up to August 2014. Measurements of Volatile Sulphur Compounds and organoleptic scores of oral malodour were selected as outcome variables. Data were extracted and a descriptive analysis was performed. RESULTS: Independent screening of 1054 unique papers resulted in 12 eligible clinical trials with a medium-term (≥2 weeks) duration. The majority of studies provided a significant reduction in oral malodour when evaluating products with an active ingredient (incorporated into a DF or a MW) used adjunctively to toothbrushing. The added value of tongue cleaning over a MW was evaluated in one study. CONCLUSION: Due to very limited evidence, the potential effect of a specifically formulated dentifrice, a mouthwash or a tongue scraper for treating oral malodour is, in general, unclear. For mouthwashes containing the active ingredients chlorhexidine + cetylpyridinium chloride + zinc (CHX + CPC + Zn) and zinc chloride + cetylpyridinium chloride (ZnCl + CPC) most evidence was available. The strength of a recommendation to use these products was graded to be 'weak'.

Efficacy of inter-dental mechanical plaque control in managing gingivitis--a meta-review.

FOCUSED QUESTION: What is the effect of mechanical inter-dental plaque removal in addition to toothbrushing, on managing gingivitis using various formats of inter-dental self-care in adults based on evidence gathered from existing systematic reviews? MATERIAL & METHODS: Three Internet sources were searched by a strategy designed to include systematic reviews on inter-dental cleaning devices. Plaque and gingivitis scores were the primary parameters of interest. Characteristics of selected papers were extracted. The potential risk of bias was estimated and the acquired evidence was graded. RESULTS: Screening of 395 papers resulted in six systematic reviews. Two papers evaluated the efficacy of dental floss, two of inter-dental brushes (IDB), one of woodsticks and one of the oral irrigator. Weak evidence of unclear or small magnitude was retrieved that supported dental floss, woodsticks and the oral irrigator to reduce gingivitis in addition to toothbrushing. No concomitant evidence for an effect on plaque emerged. There is moderate evidence that IDBs in combination with toothbrushing reduce both plaque and gingivitis. CONCLUSION: Evidence suggests that inter-dental cleaning with IDBs is the most effective method for inter-dental plaque removal. The majority of available studies fail to demonstrate that flossing is generally effective in plaque removal. All investigated devices for inter-dental self-care seem to support the management of gingivitis, however, to a varying extend.

Correlations between two different methods to score bleeding and the relationship with plaque in systemically healthy young adults.

AIM: To evaluate the correlation between bleeding on marginal probing (BOMP) and bleeding on pocket probing (BOPP), and the correlation of both bleeding indices with plaque. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional study screened 336 participants, from which 268 were eligible for examination and analysis. Bleeding and plaque indices were assessed by single examiners, at six sites per tooth. RESULTS: The mean percentage of sites per individual with bleeding on marginal probing, bleeding on pocket probing and dental plaque were 19.9%, 51.2% and 32.2% respectively. In the quadrants where the margin was probed before the pocket, a 4.6 percentage points higher bleeding tendency with BOPP was observed (p < 0.05). At a site level, the correlation coefficients of plaque and bleeding on marginal probing and bleeding on pocket probing were 0.19 and 0.20 respectively. Both bleeding indices were also shown to be correlated (r = 0.89, fixed effect model). CONCLUSION: The prevalence of bleeding upon probing is influenced by the scoring method that is used for the diagnosis. Probing the bottom of the pocket results in significantly more bleeding than running a probe along the margin.