Search

The term desquamative gingivitis (DG) refers to a clinical manifestation that can be caused by several disorders. Many of them are immunologically mediated; in addition to the oral cavity, they can affect extraoral mucocutaneous sites, e.g., larynx, conjunctiva, esophagus, nasal and genital mucosa, and the skin. The degree of oral, periodontal, and systemic involvement determines the overall morbidity and, sometimes, the mortality of these disorders. We comprehensively review disorders commonly associated with DG and highlight diagnostic pathways, guidelines for differential diagnosis, and oral, periodontal, and systemic implications. More rare conditions are reviewed as well. Mucous membrane pemphigoid, oral lichen planus, and pemphigus vulgaris are responsible for the majority of cases of DG. In addition, other uncommon disorders should be considered. Accurate clinical, histologic, and serologic investigations are often required to differentiate among DG-associated disorders, provide adequate therapy, and improve the prognosis of patients.

Background: Due to the side effects of chlorhexidine digluconate (CHX) mouthrinsing, a spray has been proposed as an alternative method of CHX delivery to the oral cavity. The aim of this study was to investigate the plaque inhibitory effects of CHX, cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC), and triclosan (TRN) delivered by sprays and mouthrinses., Methods: The study was an observer-masked, randomized cross-over design balanced for carryover effects, involving 15 healthy volunteers in a 4-day plaque regrowth model. Products being tested (0.2% CHX, 0.12% CHX, 0.05% CPC, and 0.03% TRN) were used both as sprays and mouthrinses. A saline solution served as a negative control. On day 1, subjects received professional prophylaxis, suspended oral hygiene measures, and commenced using their allocated products. On day 5, subjects were scored for disclosed plaque., Results: CHX sprays (P<0.01) were the most effective sprays in preventing plaque regrowth, without significant differences between the two concentrations tested (P>0.05). TRN spray showed a significant inhibition of plaque regrowth in comparison to the negative control (P<0.05). CPC spray did not differ from saline spray (P>0.05). A similar trend of efficacy was detected for rinses. Although the effect on plaque regrowth observed with CHX rinses was superior to that of CHX sprays (P<0.0003), the latter did not cause side effects (P>0.2)., Conclusions: These findings, together with those from clinical trials, suggest that the CHX-containing sprays may represent an effective alternative to CHX rinses when mechanical oral hygiene has to be avoided in restricted areas. On the contrary, the TRN and CPC sprays showed little or no plaque inhibitory effects.

Background: Chlorhexidine (CHX)-containing mouthrinses are recommended as adjuncts to mechanical oral hygiene. The problem associated with side effects, however, has stimulated the search for alternative antiplaque agents. The aim of this study was to investigate the plaque inhibitory effects of two mouthrinses containing amine fluoride/stannous fluoride (ASF) and antimicrobial host proteins (lactoperoxidase, lysozyme and lactoferrin; LLL), respectively., Methods: The study was an observer-masked, randomized 4x4 Latin square cross-over design balanced for carryover effects, involving 12 healthy volunteers in a 4-day plaque regrowth model. A 0.12% CHX mouthrinse and a saline solution served as positive and negative controls, respectively. On day 1, subjects received professional prophylaxis, suspended oral hygiene measures, and commenced rinsing with their allocated rinses. On day 5, subjects were scored for disclosed plaque., Results: The ASF rinse showed a significant inhibition of plaque regrowth in comparison to both saline and LLL solutions, but the lowest plaque indices were obtained with the CHX formulation (P<0.01). There were no significant differences between LLL rinse and saline (P>0.05). Such pattern of efficacy was the same in anterior and posterior teeth and in vestibular and lingual surfaces as well, with the exception of the lingual anterior surfaces. In these sites, differences between the CHX and ASF rinses were not significant (P>0.05). A significantly higher prevalence of side effects was found in subjects using the CHX product (P<0.0042)., Conclusions: Although the effect on plaque regrowth observed with 0.12% CHX rinsing was superior to that with ASF, the ASF rinse was not associated with side effects. These findings, together with those from long-term trials, suggest that the ASF rinse may represent an effective alternative to CHX rinse as an adjunct to oral hygiene. On the contrary, the LLL rinse did not significantly inhibit plaque regrowth.