Clinical Use of Paraprobiotics for Pregnant Women with Periodontitis: Randomized Clinical Trial.

Periodontal disease is very common in pregnant women. Paraprobiotics are a subset of probiotics. They can be defined as inactivated microbial cells providing health benefits to the host and are considered particularly safe. The aim of this study was to compare the periodontal health of pregnant women and puerperae after 6 months of home use of paraprobiotics. A total of 30 pregnant women were enrolled and divided into two groups: the test group, who had to use a paraprobiotic-based toothpaste (Biorepair Peribioma Pro, Coswell S.p.A., Funo di Argelato, BO, Italy) and mousse (Mousse Mouthwash Biorepair Peribioma, Coswell S.p.A.) twice a day, and the control group, who had to use only the paraprobiotic-based toothpaste. The time frames of the study were: 1 month (T1), 3 months (T2) and 6 months (T3), and data were collected during pregnancy and in the period immediately following delivery. The following indices were evaluated at T0, T1, T2 and T3: clinical attachment loss (CAL), probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BOP), plaque control record (PCR), modified marginal gingival index (mMGI), papillary marginal gingival index (PMGI) and recessions (R). All data were subjected to statistical analysis. PCR decreased significantly from T0 to T1 in the control group and from T0 to T2 and from T0 to T3 in the test group. BOP tended to decrease in both groups, but a significant reduction was observed only in the test group. CAL, PPD, PMGI and mMGI tended to decrease gradually in both groups without significant differences between or within groups. The combination of the paraprobiotic-based toothpaste and the paraprobiotic-based mousse significantly reduced BoP and plaque control over time, although there were no significant differences with the use of the paraprobiotic-based toothpaste alone. In addition, the combination of the two products promoted a trend towards the better stabilization of recessions.

Correction: Preda et al. The Efficacy of Powered Oscillating Heads vs. Powered Sonic Action Heads Toothbrushes to Maintain Periodontal and Peri-Implant Health: A Narrative Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 1468.

There was an error in the original article [...].

Oral Hygiene Practice among Hospitalized Patients: An Assessment by Dental Hygiene Students.

AIM: An epidemiological study was carried out, in hospital wards, with the aim of assessing the oral health status of patients subjected to multiple medical treatments. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study was conducted at Fondazione IRCCS Policlinico San Matteo (Pavia, Italy). A questionnaire was submitted to patients for the evaluation of oral hygiene devices used; then, a clinical examination was conducted to collect Decayed Missing Filled Teeth (DMFT) index, Plaque Index (PI), and Marginal Gingival Index (MGI) values. RESULTS: Manual toothbrushes were used by a wide range of the sample study (65-100% among hospital wards), together with mouthwash (20-80%); interproximal aids were used by few patients (the lowest recorded value was 33.3%). CONCLUSION: dental hygienists could be integrated into hospital wards as oral hygiene procedure instructors, for the improvement of the oral health conditions of hospitalized patients.

Oral hygiene practices in nurseries (0-3 years) in the cities of Pavia and Vigevano.

Aim: This study was conducted to evaluate attention to and knowledge of oral care in children aged 0-3 years, on the basis of data collected from early years educators working with this age group. Information was also collected about the oral hygiene practices adopted in nurseries and the types of food provided, with the aim of increasing knowledge and raising awareness of this topic. Materials and methods: A questionnaire was created using the "Google Forms" program and sent to all the 47 nurseries in the city of Pavia and Vigevano. Results: Twenty establishments agreed to take part in the research. Assessment of knowledge and of awareness of oral care among early years educators caring for children in the age range 0-3 years revealed variability and some confusion. The results showed a general lack of attention to oral care in the period before the milk teeth appear, as well as limited use of gauze swabs. There was generally some use of educational play focusing on this issue, albeit not daily across all the nurseries participating in the survey. Nurseries rarely had the support of a professional dental hygienist to raise awareness among early years educators and parents. Conclusions: The findings obtained through this study indicate that, in the area surveyed, there is a lack of widespread knowledge and awareness of oral prevention in young children, and of the oral hygiene maintenance techniques to use in this age group. This suggests a need to develop preventive protocols to improve knowledge and awareness of children's oral health among the adults who care for them.

The Efficacy of Powered Oscillating Heads vs. Powered Sonic Action Heads Toothbrushes to Maintain Periodontal and Peri-Implant Health: A Narrative Review.

OBJECTIVES: To compare the efficacy of rotating-oscillating heads (ORHs) VS sonic action heads (SAHs) powered toothbrushes on plaque accumulation and gingival inflammation. METHODS: An electronic (MEDLINE, Embase, Inspec, PQ SciTech and BIOSIS) and a complementary manual search were made to detect eligible studies. RCTs meeting the following criteria were included: final timepoint longer than 15 days; year of publication after 2000; patients without orthodontic appliances or severe systemic/psychiatric diseases. Studies comparing two or more different types of sonic/roto-oscillating toothbrushes were excluded. Selection of articles, extraction of data, and assessment of quality were made independently by several reviewers. RESULTS: 12 trials (1433 participants) were included. The differences between ORHs and SAHs toothbrushes were expressed as weighted mean differences (WMD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI). The heterogeneity of data was evaluated. Concerning Plaque Index, both toothbrushes obtained comparable results. Six trials of up to 3 months and at an unclear risk of bias provided significant outcomes in terms of gingival inflammation in favor of ORHs toothbrush. Evidence resulting from three trials of up to 6 months and at a high/low risk of bias stated SAHs toothbrush superiority in gingival inflammation. CONCLUSIONS: Both ORHs and SAHs toothbrushes improved the outcomes measured from the baseline. In most of the good quality trials included, SAHs toothbrush showed statistical better long-term results. Due to the shortage of investigations, no further accurate conclusions can be outlined with reference to the superiority of a specific powered toothbrush over the other.

Probiotic Alternative to Chlorhexidine in Periodontal Therapy: Evaluation of Clinical and Microbiological Parameters.

Periodontitis consists of a progressive destruction of tooth-supporting tissues. Considering that probiotics are being proposed as a support to the gold standard treatment Scaling-and-Root-Planing (SRP), this study aims to assess two new formulations (toothpaste and chewing-gum). 60 patients were randomly assigned to three domiciliary hygiene treatments: Group 1 (SRP + chlorhexidine-based toothpaste) (control), Group 2 (SRP + probiotics-based toothpaste) and Group 3 (SRP + probiotics-based toothpaste + probiotics-based chewing-gum). At baseline (T0) and after 3 and 6 months (T1-T2), periodontal clinical parameters were recorded, along with microbiological ones by means of a commercial kit. As to the former, no significant differences were shown at T1 or T2, neither in controls for any index, nor in the experimental groups for adherent gingiva and gingival recession. Conversely, some significant differences were found in Group 2 and 3 for the other clinical indexes tested. Considering microbiological parameters, no significant differences were detected compared to baseline values for any group, except in Group 2 and 3 at T2 only for the percentage of the orange complex pathogens and for the copies/microliter of Prevotella intermedia and Fusobacterium nucleatum. Accordingly, although colonization of probiotic bacteria has not been assessed in this study, the probiotics tested represent a valid support to SRP with a benefit on several clinical indexes and on specific periodontopathogens. Despite this promising action, the relationship between the use of probiotics and improvement in clinical parameters is still unclear and deserves to be further explored.