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.

New design of interdental rubber picks - does the archimedean screw design bring an improvement for experimental cleaning efficacy and force?

BACKGROUND: Up to date, interdental brushes (IDB) are the first choice for interdental cleaning because of their cleaning efficacy. Cylindrical ones must be selected individually according to the size/morphology of the interdental area (IDR), whereas conical ones cover a larger variability of IDR. However, there is a trend on the part of patients towards interdental rubber picks (IRP) which are in general conically shaped, and which seem to be linked with lower cleaning efficacy. A new IRP with an Archimedes´ screw design was developed to overcome this limitation. Therefore, the in vitro study aimed to measure the experimental cleaning efficacy (ECE) and force (ECF) during interdental use of IDBs versus the new IRP type. METHODS: Three IRPs with different tapers (PHB angled: 0.039, PHB straight S: 0.027, Vitis straight M: 0.045; all Flexipicks, Dentaid, Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain) were compared to one IDB (Interprox micro PHD 0.9, Dentaid, Cerdanyola del Vallès, Spain). IDR were reproduced by a 3D-printer (Form2, Formlabs Sommerville, MA, USA) according to human teeth and matched to equivalent pairs (isosceles triangle, concave, convex) in three different diameters (1.0 mm,1.1 mm,1.3 mm). Covered with simulated biofilm, pre-/ post-brushing situations of IDR (standardized, computer-aided ten cycles) were photographed and quantified by digital image subtraction to calculate ECE [%]. ECF were registered with a load cell [N]. Statistically significant differences were detected using the Mann-Whitney-U-test and the Kruskal-Wallis-test with Bonferroni correction for multiple testing. RESULTS: Overall, the ECE (mean ± SD) was higher for IDB micro 0.9 (45.95 ± 11.34%, p < 0.001) compared to all IRPs (PHB angled: 25.37 ± 15.29%; PHB straight: 22.28 ± 16.75%; Vitis straight: 25.24 ± 12.21%; p ≤ 0.001), whereat best ECE was achieved in isosceles triangle IDR of 1.0-1.1 mm (IDB micro 0.9: 70.7 ± 7.7%; PHB angled S: 57.30 ± 4.43%; p < 0.001). The highest ECF occurred for Vitis straight M with 2.11 ± 0.46 N, while IDB micro 0.9 showed lowest ECF values (0.64 ± 0.14 N; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: IRP with an Archimedes´ screw design and a higher taper were associated with advanced ECE but also higher ECF, nevertheless, ECE didn't reach the cleaning efficacy of conventional IDBs.

The influence of artificial saliva on the cleaning force of interdental rubber picks: an in-vitro comparison.

BACKGROUND: The familiar aids for interdental cleaning such as dental floss or interdental brushes (IDB) are often associated with difficult handling or an increased potential for trauma. Interdental picks (IRP), which have no metal core and silicone flaps instead of nylon brushes, offer the alternative. However, in-vitro studies found a lower cleaning effectiveness combined with higher forces for cleaning compared with conventional IDBs. The aim of this in-vitro study was to measure the experimental cleaning forces (ECF) using IRP with versus without an artificial saliva (AS; GUM Hydral, Sunstar Suisse SA, Etoy, Switzerland). METHODS: The test set-up was developed to investigate the cleaning of 3D-printed interdental area (IDR) mimicking human teeth (Form 2, Formlabs Sommerville, MA, USA) under standardized conditions. Three different morphologies (isosceles triangle, convex, concave) and three different sizes (1.0 mm,1.1 mm,1.3 mm) were used. Two different IRPs (GUM Soft-picks Advanced: SPA versus GUM Soft-picks Advanced Plus: SPA+, Sunstar Suisse SA, Etoy, Switzerland) in three sizes (small, regular, large), were used with versus without AS. ECF during ten cleaning cycles were recorded by a load cell [N]. RESULTS: Using AS leaded to significant lower values for ECF than without (1.04 ± 0.66 N versus 1.97 ± 1.01 N, p < 0.001). In general, a lower ECF was recorded for convex IDR compared to isosceles triangle and concave morphologies (p < 0.001) as well as for gap sizes of 1.3 mm compared to the smaller sizes (p < 0.001). For SPA+ we found significantly higher force values than for SPA (1.67 ± 0.93 N versus 1.31 ± 0.97 N, p < 0.001) independent of the use of AS. CONCLUSION: Within the study´s in-vitro limitations, we found AS reduced ECF of IRPs by half and allowed using larger diameters interdentally, which could be associated with (1) a higher cleaning effectiveness and (2) a higher acceptance e.g. of patients with dry mouth. This has to be confirmed by further clinical investigations.

In vitro comparison of cleaning efficacy and force of cylindric interdental brush versus an interdental rubber pick.

BACKGROUND: Interdental brushes (IDB) are according to the actual evidence the first choice for cleaning interdental areas (IDR). Their size should be chosen individually according to the IDR morphology. However, interdental rubber picks (IRP) are appreciated better by the patients and are hence becoming more and more popular but the evidence regarding their efficacy is still limited. The aim of this in vitro study was to measure the experimental cleaning efficacy (ECE) and force (ECF) during the use of interdental brushes versus newer wireless types with rubber filaments (IRP), both fitted and non-fitted for different IDR. METHODS: The medium size of a conical IRP (regular, ISO 2) with elastomeric fingers versus four sizes (ISO 1, 2, 3, 4) of cylindric IDB with nylon filaments (all Sunstar Suisse SA, Etoy, Switzerland) were tested. Interdental tooth surfaces were reproduced by a 3D-printer (Form 2, Formlabs Sommerville, MA, USA) according to human teeth and matched to morphologically equivalent pairs (isosceles triangle, concave, convex) fitting to three different gap sizes (1.0 mm, 1.1 mm, 1.3 mm). The pre-/post brushing situations at IDR (standardized, computer aided ten cycles) were photographically recorded and quantified by digital image subtraction to calculate ECE [%]. ECF were registered with a load cell [N]. RESULTS: Overall, a higher ECE was recorded for IDB compared to IRP (58.3 ± 14.9% versus 18.4 ± 10.1%; p < 0.001). ECE significantly depended on the fitting of the IDB. ECE was significant higher in isosceles triangle compared to concave and convex IDR for both IDB and IRP (p ≤ 0.001). ECF was lower for IDB (0.6 ± 0.4N) compared to IRP (0.8 ± 0.5N; p ≤ 0.001). ECE in relation to ECF increases with smaller IDB. For IRP highest values of ECF were found in the smallest IDR. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of an in vitro study, size fitted IDB cleaned more effectively at lower forces compared to conical IRP.

Evaluation of a systematic digitized training program on the effectivity of subgingival instrumentation with curettes and sonic scalers in vitro.

OBJECTIVES: Whereas the key role of subgingival instrumentation in periodontal therapy is well known, the influence of operators' experience/training with different devices on treatment results is yet uncertain. Therefore, we assessed untrained undergraduate students, working on manikins, as to how effectively they learn to use curettes (GRA) and sonic scalers (AIR); hypothesizing that AIR will result in higher relative cleaning efficacy (RCE) than GRA. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Before baseline evaluation (T0), 30 operators (9 males, 21 females) received a 2-h theoretical lesson for both instruments, followed by a 12-week period with a weekly digitized training program for 45 min. During three sessions (T1-T3), the operators had to instrument six equivalent test teeth with GRA and AIR. At T0-T3, treatment time, proportion of removed simulated biofilm (RCE-b), and hard deposits (RCE-d) were measured. RESULTS: At T0, RCE-b was in mean(SD) 64.18(25.74) % for GRA, 62.25(26.69) % for AIR; (p = 0.172) and RCE-d 85.48(12.32) %/ 65.71(15.27) % (p < 0.001). At T3, operators reached highest RCE-b in both groups (GRA/AIR 71.54(23.90) %/71.75(23.05)%; p = 0.864); RCE-d GRA/AIR: 84.68(16.84) %/77.85(13.98) %; p < 0.001). Both groups achieved shorter treatment times after training. At T3, using curettes was faster (GRA/AIR 16.67(3.31) min/19.80(4.52) min; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: After systematic digitized training, untrained operators were able to clean 70% of the root surfaces with curettes and sonic scalers. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: It can be concluded that a systematic digitized and interactive training program in manikin heads is helpful in the training of root surface debridement.

Influence of motivation and a new digitized training program on undergraduate dental students during preclinical scaling training.

BACKGROUND: The current study evaluated whether a new digitized scaling training program (DTP: n = 30; supervisor-student-ratio 1:10) improves the performance of undergraduate dental student during a preclinical course in regard to two different instruments [sonic scalers (AIR) and Gracey curettes (GRA)] compared to a conventional training program (CTP: n = 19; supervisor-student-ratio 1:4). METHODS: All the participants received a two-hour lecture on both instruments, followed by a 12-week period with a weekly training program lasting 45 min (10 sessions); one group was supported by DTP. At the end of the training phase, all the participants performed the subgingival scaling of six equivalent test teeth using GRA and AIR. Treatment time, proportion of removed simulated biofilm (relative cleaning efficacy, RCE-b) and hard deposits (RCE-d) were recorded. By using a pseudonymized questionnaire with a 5-point Likert scale, self-assessment of scaling effort, handling, root surface roughness/destruction and effectiveness were evaluated. In addition, personal data such as age, gender, handedness, regularity of playing computer games/consoles and previous dental/technical or medical education were elevated and correlated with cleaning efficacy. RESULTS: The DTP participants showed higher effectiveness in RCE-b compared to those who used the CTP with GRA (71.54% vs. 67.23%, p = 0.004) and AIR (71.75% vs. 62.63%, p ≤ 0.001), and the DTP students were faster with both instruments (p ≤ 0.001). For RCE-d, there was no significant difference between the DTP and CTP groups (GRA p = 0.471; AIR p = 0.158), whereas DTP showed better RCE-d results with GRA versus AIR (84.68% vs. 77.85%, p < 0.001). According to the questionnaire, no significant differences were detected between the training groups in terms of self-assessment, handling, treatment time, root surface roughness/destruction or effectiveness of the instruments. The CTP group favored AIR compared to GRA regarding the fatigue effect. The CTP and playing computer games/consoles regularly was correlated with lower RCE-b, whereas previous education in medicine/dentistry was correlated with higher RCE-b values. CONCLUSIONS: Within the limitations of the study, the DTP with a reduced supervision effort compared to the CTP resulted in higher effectiveness and lower instrumentation time for removing simulated biofilms.

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.

New experimental setup for the measurement of cleaning efficacy and force of interdental aids in 3D-reproduced interdental areas.

BACKGROUND: Interdental rubber picks (IRP) have become a frequent and convenient alternative for interdental cleaning. However, only little evidence exists supporting the effectiveness of newer designs available on the market. Therefore, a new in vitro model was evaluated to measure the experimental cleaning efficacy (ECE), as well as the force needed for insertion and during the use of IRP, with high reproducibility. METHODS: Five different sizes of commercially marketed IRP with elastomeric fingers (IRP-F) (GUM SOFT-PICKS® Advanced, Sunstar Deutschland GmbH, Schönau, Germany) or slats (IRP-S) (TePe EasyPick™, TePe D-A-CH GmbH, Hamburg, Germany) were tested. Interdental tooth surfaces were reproduced by a 3D-printer (Form 2, Formlabs Sommerville, MA, USA) according to human teeth and matched to morphologically equivalent pairs (isosceles triangle, concave, convex) fitting to different gap sizes (1.0 mm, 1.1 mm, 1.3 mm). The pre-/post brushing situations at interdental areas (standardized cleaning, computer aided ten cycles) were photographically recorded and quantified by digital image subtraction to calculate ECE [%]. Forces were registered with a load cell [N]. RESULTS: IRP-F have to be inserted with significant higher forces of 3.2 ± 1.8 N compared to IRP-S (2.0 ± 1.6 N; p < 0.001) independent of the size and type of artificial interdental area. During cleaning process IRP-S showed significantly lower values for pushing/pulling (1.0 ± 0.8 N/0.5 ± 0.4 N) compared to IRP-F (1.6 ± 0.8 N/0.7 ± 0.3 N; p < 0.001) concomitant to significantly lower ECE (19.1 ± 9.8 vs. 21.7 ± 10.0%, p = 0.002). Highest ECE was measured with largest size of IRP-F/IRP-S independent the morphology of interdental area. CONCLUSIONS: New interdental cleaning aids can be tested by the new experimental setup supported by 3D printing technology. Within the limitations of an in vitro study, IRP-F cleaned more effectively at higher forces compared to IRP-S.

How to train periodontal endoscopy? Results of a pilot study removing simulated hard deposits in vitro.

OBJECTIVES: There is uncertainty regarding the benefits of periodontal endoscopy (PE) for subgingival instrumentation. Moreover, the influence of operators' experience and training with such a device on treatment results is unclear. Therefore, we compared in an in vitro study the use of PE for scaling and root planing (SRP) with the conventional non-surgical therapy, hypothesizing that using a PE allows to remove more simulated hard deposits than without (nPE), influenced by the operators' experience and training. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A sonic device and Gracey curettes were utilized by 11 operators (six dentists, five dental hygienists) in periodontitis manikins heads. The time required for treatment and the proportion of removed simulated hard deposits by SRP were measured. RESULTS: Using the PE led to a significant difference in removal of simulated hard deposits (%) (mean ± SD) irrespective of operators' experience (PE 90.78 ± 12.10% (range 58.80-100%); nPE 79.98 ± 22.15% (range 38.10-100%, p < 0.001)), sub-analyses for different tooth types demonstrated a significant difference in favor of PE for front teeth (p < 0.001) and in the upper jaw independent of the tooth type (p < 0.001). Comparison of treatment times for two quadrants with and without PE showed a significantly longer treatment time with PE (∆22.27 ± 17.98 mins, p <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Within the present pilot study, the use of PE led to more removal of simulated hard deposits but was concomitantly related to more time and financial effort. Using PE was most beneficial in the front area. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: PE may provide additional benefits for the removal of hard deposits compared to traditional SRP. The beneficial effect of PE seems not to be influenced by operators experience nor by pocket probing depth.

Comparison of periodontitis patients' classification in the 2018 versus 1999 classification.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to assess how the 2018 and 1999 classifications of periodontal diseases reflect (a) patients' characteristics, (b) disease severity/extent/progression and (c) tooth loss (TL) during observation period. METHODS: A total of 251 patients were followed over 21.8 ± 6.2 years. For the 1999 classification, using clinical attachment level (CAL), patients were classified as localized/generalized, mild/moderate/severe and aggressive/chronic periodontitis. For the 2018 classification, patients were staged according to their CAL or bone loss (BL) and the number of lost teeth (stages I-IV). Further factors like probing pocket depths (PPD) or furcation involvement modified the stage. The extent was sub-classified as generalized/localized. Patients were graded according to the BL/age index, smoking and/or diabetes. RESULTS: According to the 1999 classification, most patients suffered from generalized severe chronic periodontitis (203/251) or generalized aggressive periodontitis (45/251). Patients with aggressive periodontitis were younger and less often female or smokers. They showed similar TL (0.25 ± 0.22 teeth/patient*year) as generalized severe chronic periodontitis patients (0.23 ± 0.25 teeth/patient*year). According to the 2018 classification, most patients were classified as generalized III-C (140/251), III-B (31/251) or IV-C (64/251). Patients' age, smoking status, CAL, PPD and BL were well reflected. TL differed between IV-C (0.36 ± 0.47), generalized III-C (0.21 ± 0.24) and localized forms (0.10-0.15). CONCLUSIONS: Patients' characteristics, disease severity/extent/progression and TL were well reflected by the 2018 classification.

Long-term survival and maintenance efforts of splinted teeth in periodontitis patients.

OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the survival and maintenance needs of splinted teeth in periodontitis patients. METHODS: Patients receiving active and supportive periodontal treatment involving teeth splinting in a university setting were retrospectively assessed. Tooth and splint survival and number of splint-repairs were recorded. Multilevel Cox and generalized-mixed linear regression analyses were performed. RESULTS: Fifty-seven patients with 227 splinted teeth (maxilla/mandible: 148/79) were followed over mean ± SD 11.0 ± 7.2 [range: 2.0-32.4]) years. Twenty-six splinted teeth were extracted during this period, the mean (95% CI) time of splint retention was 7.3 ± 5.7 (0.1-22.7). Splinted teeth did not show significantly increased risk of tooth loss compared with non-splinted teeth (HR; 95% CI: 1.30; 0.87-1.93); while age (1.07; 1.05-1.09), PPD >6 mm (4.24; 1.26-14.31), bone loss (mean HR was 5.07-15.36 depending on severity), tooth location (posterior versus anterior teeth: HR 2.08; 1.24-3.49) and the number of occlusal contact areas (mean HR was 4.38-17.34 depending on the number of antagonistic contact areas) were associated with tooth loss. 75.3% splints required repair, with a mean of 2.6 ± 1.9 [1.0-8.0] repairs per splint during the mean observation time (0.4 ± 0.6 [0.0-3.5] repairs per splint/year). CONCLUSION: Splinting did not significantly increase the risk of tooth loss; splinted teeth showed long-term survival. To maintain splints, frequent repairs were needed. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Splinted teeth were not at significantly higher risk of tooth loss than non-splinted teeth. While splinting does not improve the prognosis of periodontally affected teeth, it can assist their retention by reducing their mobility.

Validation of multivariable models for predicting tooth loss in periodontitis patients.

OBJECTIVES: A large number of multivariable models which associate independent variables with the outcome tooth loss exist. Directly or indirectly, these make predictions as to the relative risk of tooth loss. We aimed to validate six of these prediction models. METHODS: We applied each model, if needed after adaptions, in a cohort of 301 compliant periodontitis patients who had been under supportive periodontal treatment (SPT) in a university setting over 21.7 ± 5.6 years. The models employed a range of tooth-level and patient-level parameters. Model accuracy, that is, the ability to rightly predict tooth loss during SPT using baseline parameters, was investigated by the area under the receiver-operating-characteristics curve (AUC). RESULTS: Most models showed low accuracy (AUC ranged between 0.52 and 0.67). The classification model from Avila et al. (2009) Journal of Periodontology, 80, 476-491, expressing the risk of tooth loss in five grades, was most accurate (mean AUC: 0.67, 95%CI: 0.65/0.69). When applying this model, the risk of false-positively predicting tooth loss was high, except when the highest grade (i.e. a tooth being considered as having a hopeless prognosis) was used. In this case, the specificity was 84% and the sensitivity 46%. CONCLUSIONS: Predicting tooth loss in this specific cohort of periodontitis patients was only limitedly possible.

Effect of periodontitis history on implant success: a long-term evaluation during supportive periodontal therapy in a university setting.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the long-term implant survival in patients with a history of chronic periodontitis, during supportive periodontal therapy (SPT), compared to periodontally healthy patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-nine periodontitis patients (test) with SPT for ≥9 years and implant-supported restorations (≥5 years follow-up) were recruited and pair-matched with 29 periodontally healthy patients (control). Subjects in both groups were examined following active periodontal therapy and/or implantation (T1) (test 69 implants, control 76 implants) and at end of SPT or supportive postimplant therapy (T2). Differences between the groups in implant survival (primary outcome), mean marginal bone loss (MBL) and pocket probing depths (PPDs) (secondary outcomes) were evaluated. RESULTS: Implant survival over 5 years was 97.1% in test compared to 97.4% in control group (p = 0.562). MBL was significantly different (test 18.7 ± 18.2%; control 12.5 ± 21.3%) (p < 0.05). PPDs increased at T2 in both groups (test: T1 3.4 ± 1.0 mm; T2 4.2 ± 1.6 mm; control: T1 1.0 ± 1.2 mm; T2 2.9 ± 0.8 mm; p < 0.05 between groups). Prognostic factors for implant loss appeared to be the presence of residual periodontal pockets of ≥4 mm (OR 1.90), bone height (OR 1.81) and age (OR 1.16) at T1. CONCLUSION: In terms of implant survival, no differences were observed between periodontitis and periodontally healthy patients. However, patients with history of periodontitis showed higher MBL and PPDs compared to periodontally healthy patients. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The presence of a good periodontal maintenance program with preceding successful active periodontal treatment seems to be indispensable components of successful implant treatment in patients with history of chronic periodontitis.

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.

Tooth loss in generalized aggressive periodontitis: Prognostic factors after 17 years of supportive periodontal treatment.

AIM: This retrospective longitudinal study assessed the risk of and prognostic factors for tooth loss in patients with generalized aggressive periodontitis (GAgP) after periodontal treatment in a university setting. METHODS: Fifty-seven patients (1,505 teeth) were examined before (T0) and after active periodontal therapy (APT, T1) as well as after 17.4 ± 4.8 [range: 9-28] years of supportive periodontal therapy (SPT, T2). Descriptive statistics and a Cox-proportional-hazards shared-frailty model were applied. RESULTS: Overall, 98 and 134 teeth were lost during APT and SPT, respectively, with 0.14 ± 0.18 teeth being lost per patient and year. During SPT, three patients (5%) lost ≥10 teeth, 14 (25%) lost 4-9 teeth, 40 lost 0-3 (70%) teeth, respectively. One-third (n = 19) of all patients lost no teeth. Mean PPD of the teeth surviving SPT was stable from T1 (3.5 ± 1.1 mm) to T2 (3.4 ± 1.1 mm). Nearly, 84% of all survived teeth showed stable or improved bone level at T2. Risk of tooth loss was significantly increased in active smokers (HR[95% CI]: 4.94[1.91/12.75]), the upper dental arch (1.94[1,16/3.25]), with each mm of residual PPD (1.41[1.29/1.53]), teeth with furcation involvement (FI) (HR 4.00-4.44 for different degrees) and mobility (5.39 [2.06/14.1] for degree III). CONCLUSION: Within the provided conservative treatment regimen, GAgP patients lost only few teeth.

Long-term tooth retention in chronic periodontitis - results after 18 years of a conservative periodontal treatment regimen in a university setting.

AIM: The longitudinal study assessed the risk of tooth loss under a non-regenerative treatment regimen and aimed to identify prognostic factors for tooth loss. METHODS: Three hundred and fifteen patients (8009 teeth) were examined before (T0) and after active periodontal therapy (APT, T1) as well as after (mean ± SD) 18 ± 6 years of supportive periodontal therapy (SPT, T2). Descriptive statistics and a Cox proportional hazards shared-frailty model were applied. RESULTS: Overall, 351 and 816 teeth were lost during APT and SPT, respectively, with 0.15 ± 0.17 teeth being lost per patient and year. Seventy-two percentage patients lost 0-3, 24% 4-9 and 4% ≥10 teeth. The proportion of teeth with probing-pocket depths (PPD) >6 mm was 17.2% (T0), 1.6% (T1) and remained stable at 1.7% up to T2. Tooth loss during SPT was significantly increased in older patients [HR (95% CI): 1.04 (1.01-1.07) per year] and smokers [2.62 (1.34-5.14)], with each mm of PPD [1.35 (1.17-1.56)], in multirooted compared with single-rooted teeth [1.86 (1.36-2.56)] and teeth with bone loss [BL; HR up to 23.6 (12.1-45.6) for BL > 70%]. CONCLUSION: The risk of tooth loss was generally low under the provided non-regenerative treatment regimen; a minority of patients were responsible for the majority of teeth lost during SPT.

Effect of a Multidirectional Power Toothbrush and a Manual Toothbrush in Individuals Susceptible to Gingival Recession: A 12-Month Randomized Controlled Clinical Study.

BACKGROUND: Clinical studies have explored the relationship between toothbrushing and development of gingival recession (GR), but relevant GR data for the multidirectional power toothbrush (PT) are lacking. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect of brushing with either a multidirectional PT or American Dental Association reference manual toothbrush (MT) on mid-buccal preexisting GR (PreGR) during 12 months. METHODS: This was a 12-month prospective, single-masked, parallel-group, randomized, controlled clinical study. Healthy participants without periodontitis with at least two teeth showing PreGR ≥2 mm were randomized to a group brushing with either an MT or PT. The primary outcome parameter was change at sites with PreGR ≥2 mm. All clinically based GR measurements were performed by one calibrated examiner at baseline, 6, and 12 months. Secondary outcomes were changes of GR at all mid-buccal sites (with or without PreGR), changes in percentage of GR sites demonstrating a change of ≥1 mm, and changes in probing depths. RESULTS: A total of 107 participants completed the study (PT: 55, MT: 52). During the 12-month study period the mean recession at sites with PreGR ≥2 mm decreased significantly from 2.2 to 2.1 mm in both groups (P <0.05). The extent of GR parameters did not differ between MT and PT groups at any time point. GR evaluated clinically and on stone casts was well correlated. CONCLUSION: Neither the PT nor MT led to an increase in PreGR during 12 months of daily use.

Prognostic factors for the loss of molars--an 18-years retrospective cohort study.

AIM: The aim of this study was to identify long-term prognostic factors for the loss of molars with different degrees of furcation involvement (FI) during supportive periodontal therapy (SPT). METHODS: Three hundred and seventy-nine compliant subjects with 2373 molars at baseline were retrospectively assessed. After nonsurgical (n = 76) or surgical (n = 303) non-regenerative active periodontal therapy (APT: T0-T1), patients remained under SPT (T1-T2) for 18.3 ± 5.5 (9-30.8) years. Association between tooth- and subject-related factors with tooth loss was assessed using multilevel Cox regression-analysis. RESULTS: During APT 159 and during SPT 438 molars were extracted in 256 subjects, respectively, yielding an overall survival of 74.8% (T2). Survival probabilities after 15-years of SPT were 92.4% for molars with FI-0 compared to FI-1 = 85.6%, FI-2 = 74.9% and FI-3 = 62.3%. The risk of molar loss was significantly increased for teeth with FI-3 (hazard ratio: 2.39 [95% confidence interval: 1.54-3.70]), bone loss >50% (2.16 [1.36-3.42]), mobile teeth (2.07 [1.51-2.84]), maxillary molars (1.44 [1.12-1.85]) and endodontically treated teeth (1.89 [1.58-2.26]). For each mm of mean residual pocket probing depth, the hazard of tooth loss increased 1.89-fold (1.58-2.26). On a subject level, for each year of age, HR was 1.03 (1.01-1.05). CONCLUSIONS: Furcation involvement, bone loss, tooth mobility, mean pocket depth and age strongly predicted tooth loss during SPT. Long-term retention of periodontally compromised molars was possible via conservative non-regenerative active and supportive therapy.

Efficacy versus health risks: An in vitro evaluation of power-driven scalers.

BACKGROUND: Power-driven instrumentation of root surfaces during supportive periodontal therapy is an alternative to hand instrumentation. The purpose of this pilot in vitro study was to investigate the efficacy of sub- and supragingival plaque removal with a sonic (AIR: Synea, W and H, Bürmoos, Austria) and two ultrasonic devices (TIG: Tigon+, W and H, Bürmoos, Austria; VEC: Vector, Dürr, Bietigheim-Bissingen, Germany) as well as the health-risk for dental professionals during treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The power-driven devices were utilized to remove plaque from model teeth in dummy heads. The percentage of residual artificial plaque after 2 min of supra- or subgingival instrumentation was calculated by means of image-processing techniques at four sites (n = 576) of each tooth. The Health-Risk-Index (HRI: spatter/residual plaque quotient) with the different power-driven devices was assessed during treatment. RESULTS: The smallest amounts of residual plaque were found for the sonic device AIR (8.89% ± 10.92%) and the ultrasonic scaler TIG (8.72% ± 12.02%) (P = 0.707). Significantly more plaque was remained after the use of the ultrasonic scaler VEC (18.76% ± 18.07%) (P < 0.001). Irrespectively of the scaler, efficacy was similar sub- (10.7% ± 11.6%) and supragingivally (13.5% ± 17.2%) (P = 0.901). AIR/TIG demonstrated equal residual amounts of plaque sub- (P = 0.831) as well as supragingivally (P = 0.510). However, AIR/VEC and TIG/VEC were significantly in favor of AIR and TIG (P < 0.001). In contrast, the lowest HRI was found after using VEC (0.0043) and differed considerably for AIR (0.2812) and TIG (0.0287). CONCLUSION: Sonic devices are as effective as ultrasonic devices in the removal of biofilm but bear a higher risk to the dental professional's health concerning the formation of spatter.

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.