Efficacy of two diode lasers in the removal of calculus from the root surface: An in vitro study.

INTRODUCTION: Scaling and root planning (SRP) is still the gold standard of nonsurgical periodontal therapy, and it has been accompanied by several supportive therapies in recent years. One of the most studied methods is the diode laser, thanks to its thermal and bactericidal properties. Our trial intended to verify whether it could influence the chemical bond between calculus and the root surface. OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to assess the efficacy of the diode laser prior the mechanical removal of calculus in an in vitro application. The reduction in time and the number of strokes required to clean the untreated root surfaces were evaluated as primary outcomes. The pressure was considered as a secondary outcome. METHODS: A total of 75 extracted human teeth with subgingival calculus were assigned equally among three treatment groups (n = 25) according to the size of the occupied areas, which were classified by evaluating the pixel numbers. The groups were assigned to either no pretreatment application (A), Laser Diode Fox III (Sweden & Martina) (B) or Wiser Laser Evolution (Doctor Smile) (C). The weight for instrumentation was calibrated for an After Five curette (Hu-Friedy, Chicago). A new set of tools was used for each group, and the curettes were sharpened after each use with the Sidekick sharpener (Hu-Friedy, Chicago). RESULTS: A Kruskal-Wallis test was used to assess the significance for each considered parameter. The results were statistically significant for each parameter for the two groups where the laser was used compared to the control group. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the limitations of an in vitro study, data showed that the diode laser had an overall positive effect on root debridement, facilitating SRP in terms of stroke count, time, and pressure.

Alcohol-free essential oils containing mouthrinse efficacy on three-day supragingival plaque regrowth: a randomized crossover clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the antiplaque effects of an alcohol-free mouthrinse containing essential oils-Listerine Zero (LZ)-and an alcohol-based essential oils mouthrinse (EO+) compared with a positive control of 0.20% chlorhexidine mouthrinse (CHX) and a negative control of a placebo solution (saline), using an in vivo plaque regrowth model of three days. METHODS: The study was designed as a double-masked, randomized, crossover clinical trial, involving 21 volunteers to compare four different mouthrinses, using a three-day plaque regrowth model. After receiving thorough professional prophylaxis at baseline, over the next three days each volunteer refrained from all oral hygiene measures and performed two daily rinses with 15 mL of the test mouthrinses. EO+ was compared with LZ. CHX rinse served as a positive control and a placebo solution as a negative control. At the end of each experimental period, the Plaque Index (PI) was assessed and a panelist completed through a visual analogue scale (VAS) questionnaire evaluating the organoleptic properties of each product. Each participant underwent a 14-day washout period and then there was another allocation. RESULTS: LZ showed the same inhibitory activity on plaque regrowth compared with EO+ in the whole mouth (PI = 1.72 versus 1.65, respectively), but there was less of an effect compared to the CHX (overall PI of 1.07) and a more efficient activity than the saline solution negative control (PI = 2.31). The difference of 0.07 between LZ and EO+ was not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: LZ seems to have the same inhibiting effect on plaque regrowth as EO+ and a less inhibiting effect than the CHX control. Both LZ and EO+, as well as the CHX control, show a better inhibiting effect on plaque regrowth than the placebo solution. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02894593 . Registered on 4 September 2016.

Efficacy of essential oil mouthwash with and without alcohol: a 3-day plaque accumulation model.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the antiplaque effect of a new alcohol free essential oil mouthwash with respect to a control of an essential oil with alcohol mouthwash, using an in vivo plaque regrowth model of 3-days. METHODS: The study was designed as a double-masked, randomized, crossover clinical trial, involving 30 volunteers to compare two different essential oil containing mouthwashes, during a 3-day plaque accumulation model. After receiving a thorough professional prophylaxis at the baseline, over the next 3-days each volunteer refrained from all oral hygiene measures and had two daily rinses with 20 ml of the test mouthwash (alcohol free essential oil) or the control mouthwash (essential oil with alcohol). At the end of the each experimental period, plaque was assessed and the panelists filled out a questionnaire. Each subject underwent a 14 days washout period and there was a second allocation. RESULTS: The essential oil mouthwash with ethanol shows a better inhibitory effect of plaque regrowth in 3-days than the mouthwash test with only essential oil in the whole mouth (plaque index = 2.18 against 2.46, respectively, p < 0.05); for the lower jaw (plaque index = 2.28 against 2.57, respectively, p < 0.05); for the upper jaw (plaque index = 2.08 against 2.35, respectively, p < 0.05); for the incisors (plaque index = 1.93 against 2.27, respectively, p < 0.05); and the canines (plaque index = 1.99 against 2.47, respectively, p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The essential oil containing mouthwash without alcohol seems to have a less inhibiting effect on the plaque regrowth than the traditional alcoholic solution.