Search

Objective To evaluate in vitro the thermal effects induced by four different ultrasonic scalers on the temperature in the root canal during ultrasonic scaling. Methods An extracted lower central incisor provided with a thermocouple in the root canal and a tube, entering the tooth incisally and exiting it apically to simulate an artificial bloodstream, was placed in a model of the lower jaw with soft artificial gingiva. Tested ultrasonic scaler systems included: EMS PM-600, Satelec P-max, Dürr Vector and Dentsply Cavitron. The tooth was scaled with each system at full water supply of 21°C. Furthermore, the amount of water supply was determined to maintain during scaling a constant temperature in the root canal. Finally, thermal changes due to scaling without water were assessed. Results Except for the Vector all scaler systems showed a temperature decrease in the root canal. The Vector with water/polish suspension showed a trend towards an increase in temperature. To maintain a constant temperature in the root canal the Cavitron needed twice the amount of water compared with PM-600 and P-max. Without water, all scaling systems induced a temperature increase. Conclusion For safe ultrasonic scaling, care should be taken that the cooling water has room temperature and that, dependent on the scaler system, the proper amount of water is supplied. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: The primary aim was to systematically assess the available literature on the effect of an essential oils mouthwash without alcohol (EOalc-) compared to an essential oils mouthwash with alcohol (EOalc+) on plaque scores and parameters of gingival health. The secondary aim was to evaluate user appreciation., Materials and Methods: The MEDLINE-PubMed and Cochrane-CENTRAL databases were searched to identify eligible studies published up to and including March 2024. Papers comparing the effectiveness of EOalc- and EOalc+ were included. The quality was assessed. A descriptive analysis and a meta-analysis were performed., Results: After screening, seven papers were found to be eligible. The descriptive analysis demonstrates a significant difference in plaque scores in favour of EOalc+. This is confirmed by the meta-analyses of plaque scores in non-brushing and brushing studies (DiffM = 0.40; 95% CI [0.27; 0.53], p < 0.00001 and DiffM = 0.05; 95% CI [0.01; 0.10], p = 0.01, respectively). This finding is also supported by the sub-analysis of brands. The meta-analyses of bleeding and gingival scores in brushing studies did not show significant differences between products. For user appreciation, the difference found was for taste perception in favour of EOalc- (DiffM = 1.63; 95% CI [0.72; 2.55], p = 0.0004)., Conclusion: When an EO-mouthwash is used in non-brushing or brushing situations, with small to moderate certainty, EOalc- provided less effect regarding plaque control than EOalc+. For bleeding and gingival index there is weak certainty for no difference. In terms of the taste perception EOalc- seems more appreciated., (© 2024 The Author(s). International Journal of Dental Hygiene published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Aim: To assess user perceptions of different commercially available fluoride mouthwashes (FL-MWs)., Methods: A single-blind, randomized clinical trial was conducted. Participants were randomly assigned to a sequence of six different FL-MWs, one of which contained alcohol. For each visit, participants rinsed with one specific mouthwash (15 mL) for 30 s. After rinsing, participants completed a questionnaire with a visual analogue scale. Questions focused on overall taste, mild/pungent feeling, taste duration, foaming effect, burning sensation, sensitivity, numbness, dryness, rinsing time, smell, and colour of the mouthwashes. Descriptive analyses and statistical tests regarding differences among and between the mouthwashes were performed., Results: Overall, 53 participants completed the study protocol, including nine who did, however, not rinse with the alcohol-containing mouthwash due to religious reasons. Among the mouthwashes, significant differences were found for foaming effect, sensitivity, rinsing time, smell, and colour (p < 0.05). Pairwise comparison for smell did not reveal a difference, and foaming was within the acceptance range (low to medium foaming). Coloured mouthwashes were more appreciated than transparent solutions (p = 0.00). The mouthwash containing essential oils and alcohol produced significantly more sensitivity (p = 0.00) and, in general, participants experienced the rinsing time significantly longer (p < 0.05) compared to the non-alcohol-containing mouthwashes., Conclusion: There is heterogeneity in user perceptions and preferences for FL-MWs, with a significant difference in foaming effect, sensitivity, rinsing time, smell, and colour. Coloured mouthwashes are preferred. The mouthwash containing essential oils and alcohol was less acceptable in relation to sensitivity and rinsing time., (© 2024 The Author(s). International Journal of Dental Hygiene published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)