Search

Background and Objectives: Severe periodontitis affects about 10% of the world population. In addition, associations between periodontitis and systemic diseases exist. Therefore, the diagnosis should be made quickly and at an early stage. Matrix metalloproteinase-8 (MMP-8) is the most prominent collagenase found in inflamed periodontal tissues. Its active form (aMMP-8) is increasingly used as a diagnostic biomarker. Aim of the present study is to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of a novel aMMP-8 point-of-care (POC) test in comparison to the standard laboratory test to diagnose the disease rapidly and reliably., Material and Methods: In a prospective, mono-center, double-blinded, case-control study, participants with healthy gums (n = 35), gingivitis (n = 60) and periodontitis (n = 35) were investigated before and after therapy. Beside clinical variables for plaque and inflammation, aMMP-8 concentrations were determined in oral rinsing specimens by the enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) and by POC. Positive and negative percent agreements with their exact one-sided lower 95% confidence limits were calculated., Results: Of 130 participants, 111 finished the study. Overall, positive percent agreements were 75.8% (57.7-88.9) before treatment and 73.7% (56.9-86.6) after treatment. Negative percent agreements were 92.8% (85.7-97.0) before and 93.3% (85.1-97.8) after treatment. Positive test results (POC and ELISA) ranged from 5.7% to 8.6% in healthy patients, 25.0-29.8% in patients with gingivitis and 40.0-48.1% in patients with periodontitis. Patients who had positive aMMP-8 test results (POC) showed higher scores for plaque and inflammation., Conclusions: The novel POC test to detect aMMP-8 has proved to agree strongly with the standard method, ELISA. The test can be recommended to screen patients at risk for periodontitis in dental offices, at the general practitioner and at specialists for associated diseases., (© 2016 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

The oral microbiota represents an important part of the human microbiota, and includes several hundred to several thousand diverse species. It is a normal part of the oral cavity and has an important function to protect against colonization of extrinsic bacteria which could affect systemic health. On the other hand, the most common oral diseases caries, gingivitis and periodontitis are based on microorganisms. While (medical) research focused on the planktonic phase of bacteria over the last 100 years, it is nowadays generally known, that oral microorganisms are organised as biofilms. On any non-shedding surfaces of the oral cavity dental plaque starts to form, which meets all criteria for a microbial biofilm and is subject to the so-called succession. When the sensitive ecosystem turns out of balance - either by overload or weak immune system - it becomes a challenge for local or systemic health. Therefore, the most common strategy and the golden standard for the prevention of caries, gingivitis and periodontitis is the mechanical removal of this biofilms from teeth, restorations or dental prosthesis by regular toothbrushing.

A variety of parameters is available to assess the efficacy of oral antiseptics. Most study protocols select the parameters according to the specific study goal or according to preferences of the researchers. Beside general recommendations for home-use studies, no recommendations exist for other study types. Therefore, pre-selected parameters should be compared within several study designs and the most suitable parameters should be recommended for further application. The following parameters were selected before study start: plaque indices (PlI, Silness & Loe 1964, M-QHI, Turesky et al. 1970), plaque area (PlA), bacterial vitality (BV, Netuschil et al. 1989), gingivitis indices (GI, Loe 1967; M-GI, Lobene et al. 1986; BOP, Ainamo & Bay 1975), gingival crevicular fluid, colony forming units, and the discoloration index (DI, Brecx et al. 1993). The parameters were applied in four study designs: eight-hour substantivity studies, four-day plaque re-growth studies, 21-day experimental gingivitis studies, and six-month home-use studies. Pearson correlation coefficients were computed. The highest correlations were found between PlI and M-QHI and between GI and M-GI (p<0.01) in all corresponding studies and treatment groups. Few middle correlations existed between BOP and the other gingival indices. Neither GI nor M-GI correlated with GCF nor did BV with plaque indices. Inconsistent correlations were obtained between PlA and plaque indices and between PlI and GI. It is concluded, that primary parameters for these designs should be one plaque index and/or one gingivitis index to monitor plaque and gingivitis. The other parameters did not yield additional information about the study outcome.

In the literature and in the daily study routine, a wide range of study designs exists to test the efficacy of mouthrinses. Within these various designs, a considerable number of parameters is applied. Due to the different protocols currently used the outcome of these investigations is hardly to compare. Therefore, it was the aim of the present investigation to assess suitable study designs of different durations, to select and compare parameters, and to find suitable study participants in order to finally recommend more standardized protocols for future studies on oral antiseptics. Eight-hour substantivity studies, four-day plaque re-growth studies, 21-day experimental gingivitis studies, and six-month home-use studies were performed either cross-over or parallel. The clinical studies were randomized, controlled, and investigator-blinded. From most often applied clinical and laboratory parameters, two plaque indices, bacterial vitality, three gingivitis indices, gingival crevicular fluid, colony forming units, and the discoloration index were selected to assess plaque inhibition, gingivitis development, tooth staining, and possible bacterial shifts in the oral cavity. Four or five, respectively, treatment groups were formed that rinsed with the following solutions: chlorhexidine digluconate 0.06%, 0.12%, 0.20%, amine fluoride/stannous fluoride, and a negative control. In addition, all study designs were tested on two different study populations. Population alpha consisted of persons who had a gingival index <0.8 while population beta participants presented a mean gingival index of >/=0.8. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated between parameters and between subsets of teeth and full-mouth recording. T-tests were applied to compare between populations alpha and beta.

Objective: The aim of this experimental gingivitis study was to assess the efficacy and safety of two new chlorhexidine (CHX) mouthrinses., Material and Methods: Ninety volunteers participated in this investigator-blind, randomized, clinical-controlled trial in parallel groups. During the treatment period, no oral hygiene measures except rinsing with non-alcoholic 0.2% CHX or 0.2% CHX/0.055% sodium fluoride mouthrinses, a positive control, or a negative control were permitted. The primary parameter was the gingival index; the secondary parameters were plaque index, discolouration index, and bleeding on probing. Clinical examinations were conducted 14 days before the start of the study, at baseline, and after 7, 14, and 21 days. The two sample t-test, anova, and ancova were used for the statistical analysis., Results: No difference in efficacy was found between the two new CHX formulations and the positive control. On day 21, statistically significantly less gingival inflammation and plaque accumulation compared with placebo were observed. Besides discolouration and taste irritations, no adverse events were recorded., Conclusion: The two new CHX mouthrinses were able to inhibit plaque re-growth and gingivitis. Neither the omission of alcohol nor the supplementation with sodium fluoride had weakened the clinical efficacy of CHX with respect to the analysed clinical parameters.

The aim of this double-blind, 28-week study was to evaluate the plaque-inhibitory and antigingivitis efficacy of a fluoride toothpaste containing 0.3% triclosan and essential oil (Dental Kosmetik, Dresden, Germany) in comparison with a control toothpaste. One hundred twenty subjects previously treated for chronic periodontitis were included in the study. At baseline, 8, 18, and 28 weeks, plaque accumulation (PlI) and gingival status (GI) were assessed. Probing pocket depth (PD) and bleeding on probing (BOP) were measured at baseline and week 28 using a Florida probe. No professional hygiene was delivered during the study period. Mean plaque scores decreased between baseline and week 8 in both groups. At the end of the study, a significant increase of mean PlI compared to baseline could be observed in the test and in the control groups. Comparing the two groups, the PlI in the triclosan group was significantly lower than in the control group. Mean gingival scores decreased significantly during the first 8-week period in both groups. This reduction was followed by an increase of GI in the control, while the GI in the test group reached a significantly lower value than in controls after 28 weeks. Furthermore, at week 28, in both groups the PD were decreased as compared to the pre-study data. It is concluded that the triclosan/essential oil additive in a fluoride-containing dentifrice exhibited distinctive antigingivitis as well as plaque-inhibitory effects during a 28-week maintenance period in periodontitis patients.

The aim of this randomized, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, blind clinical study was to examine the dental plaque and the gingivitis inhibitory effects of two low-dose 0.06% chlorhexidine (CHX) preparations in comparison to a commercially available 0.1% CHX solution, an amine fluoride/stannous fluoride (ASF) solution and a water control as an adjunct to the daily mechanical oral-hygiene measures. After prophylaxis, 81 medical students performed their tooth cleaning and were asked to rinse for 30 s, according to the instructions given by the manufacturers with the assigned amount of the following solutions: once daily 10 ml ASF 250 ppm or twice daily each 10 ml CHX 0.06% with fluoride, 10 ml CHX 0.06% without fluoride, 15 ml CHX 0.1% or 100 ml tap water. The plaque index (PlI), the gingival index (GI) and the discoloration index (DI) were taken at day -14 and months (M) 0, 1, 2, 3 and 6. In this study group with good oral hygiene, all test products led to a reduction of the PlI scores when used as supplements to the usual mechanical hygiene measures. At M3 subjects using both the 0.1% as well as the 0.06% CHX showed significantly less plaque accumulation than those using ASF. In the GI a significant difference between the control and 0.1 % CHX was found at M3 and at M6. If a further decrease in the GI is wanted, a minimum concentration of 0.1% CHX for long-term use in association with habitual cleaning is needed, which, however, should be limited to special patients. If maintaining clinical health is the goal, the other solutions are a good alternative to 0.1% CHX because they exhibit less staining.

Although vital plaque micro-organisms are part of the natural ecosystem in the oral cavity they are also the key factor in the development of diseases induced by the human dental plaque. In a previous study (9) the portion of vital bacteria related to the total number of plaque micro-organisms (i.e. the microbial vitality) appeared low in small plaque samples. The objective of this investigation was to determine the exact relationship of microbial vitality and age of supragingival plaque during the early phases of human dental plaque formation. Between intervals of optimal oral hygiene, thirteen participants refrained from all oral hygiene measures for periods of 1, 2, 4, 8, 24 and 72 h. Plaque was completely sampled from a defined area situated on the vestibular surface of the teeth 13, 14, 15, 23, 24 and 25. The pooled plaque from these areas was immediately processed. Total bacterial counts (BC) as enumerated by darkfield microscopy, and colony-forming units (CFU) were recorded. The microbial vitality was calculated indirectly as plating efficiency (PE = CFU per BC) and directly assessed using a vital fluorescence (VF) technique. In the 1 h old plaque samples the median values of PE and VF were 29% and 18%, respectively. Thereafter, the microbial vitality increased significantly with plaque age. The 24 h old plaque samples yielded values of 77% (PE) and 62% (VF). It was concluded that the microbial vitality of the early dental plaque investigated was considerably lower compared to that of a more mature plaque.

The experimental gingivitis model was used to compare the anti-plaque, anti-gingivitis and anti-microbial efficacies of a phenolic compound (Listerine) and an amine/stannous fluoride mouthwash (Meridol), using a placebo preparation as negative control and a chlorhexidine solution as positive control in a double-blind study. After professional toothcleaning, 36 volunteers performed optimal oral hygiene for a period of 2 weeks. They then ceased all oral hygiene procedures for 21 days during which they rinsed twice daily with 1 of the 4 mouthrinses. After 3 weeks of rinsing, plaque indices remained the lowest in the chlorhexidine group, while subjects using Listerine or Meridol harbored similar indices significantly lower than that of individuals rinsing with the placebo solution. Up to that time, the gingival index scores were equal in all groups except for the chlorhexidine group in which the values only amounted to half of these encountered in the other groups. The plaque vitality scores showed a bactericidal effect in vivo of chlorhexidine during the entire time of experimental gingivitis. In contrast, the data gave no evidence of an antibacterial effect in vivo of Listerine. The efficacy of Meridol to kill micro-organisms was similar to chlorhexidine during the early stages of plaque accumulation and, with time, became insignificant. This study has demonstrated that chlorhexidine was superior to Listerine and Meridol in its ability to maintain low plaque scores and gingival health during this 3-week period of no mechanical oral hygiene. Moreover, it was also shown that Meridol was as effective as Listerine in reducing plaque accumulation and, in contrast to Listerine, possessed a remarkable but transient antibacterial effect in vivo.

Within the framework of a gingivitis study the sulcus fluid flow rate (SFFR) at the lower and upper premolars of 9 subjects was determined with the assistance of Periotron 6000. The measurements were conducted at days 0, 7, 14 and 21 with the aim to compare the SFFR after 3 minutes (Löe and Holm-Pedersen 1965, Rüdin et al. 1970) with the measurements of Lamster et al. (1985a, b) at 30 seconds. The increase of the SFFR at 30 seconds, as well as at 3 min was significant on all measurement days, but no proportional dependance of SFFR on the measurement time was seen. On the basis of these results it is justified to restrict the SFFR to 30 seconds, to reliably determine the grade of infection of gingiva.

Based on scientific proof, only few mouthrinse solutions can be recommended. However, it is impossible to construct an extended table that would provide precise recommendations or advices for mouthrinse utilisation related to any possible discomfort or diseases. Only reliable information on the drugs available against periodontal disease can be offered to the therapist. By evaluation of her or his individual experiences, she or he has to judge all the armamentarium she or he possesses to react in the best possible way in each specific situation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The experimental gingivitis model was used to compare the anti-plaque, anti-gingivitis and anti-microbiaI efficacies of a phenolic compound (Listerine®) and an amine/stannous fluoride mouthwash (Meridol®), using a placebo preparation as negative control and a chlorhexidine solution as positive control in double-blind study. After professional toothcleaning, 36 volunteers performed optimal oral hygiene for a period of 2 weeks. They then ceased all onral hygiene procedures for 21 days during which they rinsed twice daily with 1 of the 4 mouthrinses. After 3 weeks of rinsing, plaque indices remained the lowest in the chlorhexidine group, while subjects using Listerine® or Meridol® harbored similar indices significantly lower than that of individuals rinsing with the placebo solution. Up to that time, the gingival index scores were equal in all groups except for the chlorhexidine group in which the values only amounted to half of these encountered in the other groups. The plaque vitality scores showed a bactericidal effect in vivo of chlorhexidine during the entire time of experimental gingivitis. In contrast, the data gave no evidence of an antibacterial effect in vivo of Listerine®. The efficacy of Meridol® to kill micro-organisms was similar to chlorhexidine during the early stages of plaque accumulation and, with time, became insignificant. This study has demonstrated that chlorhexidine was superior to Listerine® and Meridol® in its ability to maintain low plaque scores and gingival health during this 3-week period of no mechanical oral hygiene. Moreover, it was also shown that Meridol® was as effective as Listerine® reducing plaque accumulation and, in contrast to Listerine®, possessed a remarkable but transient antibacterial effect in vivo. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract The use of mouthrinses is increasing, especially as adjuncts to the daily mechanical oral hygiene. Different test systems may and can be used to test their antibacterial and clinical effects: bacteriology in vitro, substantivity in vivo , 4-day plaque re-growth, experimental gingivitis and long-term use. The plaque re-growth investigations of a few days are not only of limited use but may also be dangerous because often too extensive conclusions have been drawn from their design. The ‘gold standard’ test is the experimental gingivitis model to reveal the antiplaque as well as the antigingivitis effects of any mouthrinse preparation during 3 weeks. The last kind of investigations are of several months' duration, where the substances are used as supplements to mechanical oral hygiene measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]