Search

Introduction: This study aims to compare clinical efficacy of red injectable platelet-rich fibrin (i-PRF) and hyaluronic acid (HA) as adjuncts to professional mechanical plaque removal (PMPR) in non-surgical management of stage III periodontitis. Methods: 75 patients were split into groups: group one (G1) received HA, group two (G2) received red i-PRF, and group three (G3), received only PMPR. Periodontal evaluation was done at baseline, 4th, 8th, and 12th weeks following treatment. Results: The plaque index, gingival index, and bleeding on probing were significantly improved in all groups. Moreover, the probing depth in all three groups displayed lower levels over the three months, with G1 and G2 experiencing the greatest declines. Additionally, G1 and G2 showed a considerable increase in clinical attachment level, while G3 showed no improvement. Conclusions: Thus, the application of HA and red i-PRF in conjunction with PMPR significantly improves all periodontal metrics, however, there is no statistically significant distinction between them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Parodontologie: die Zeitschrift für die Praxis (Berlin, Germany) is the property of Quintessenz Verlags GmbH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Introduction: The effects of air-polishing on exposed root dentin surfaces are largely unknown, as there are only few studies which show heterogeneous results. Thus, this study was to investigate roughness changes of exposed dentin surfaces after air-polishing and the influence of subsequent polishing with cup and paste., Methods: Totally 54 teeth with exposed root dentin surfaces were treated using a split-mouth design by either air-polishing with erythritol and a rubber cup with polishing paste on the test side, or rubber cup and paste alone. Teeth were finally cleaned using a sonic tooth brush. Impressions were taken at relevant time points and replicated using epoxy resin. The resulting casts were profilometrically analysed to obtain the average surface roughness (sR a ) and maximum peak-to-valley height (sR z ), which are given as the mean ± standard deviation in μm., Results: After air-polishing, in comparison to the baseline, there was a slight but significant increase in sR a (0.168 ± 0.143, p < 0.001), but sR z did not change (-0.471 ± 4.857, p = 0.936). Subsequent polishing with cup and paste and cleaning with a sonic toothbrush did not reduce the surface roughness (sonic toothbrush-air-polishing, sR a -0.044 ± 0.081, p = 0.218; sR z -0.551 ± 3.563, p = 0.903)., Conclusion: The use of erythritol led to a slight increase in the roughness of the dentin surface, which was not reduced by polishing with a cup and paste. Polishing paste did not seem to conceal surface irregularities., (© 2024 The Author(s). International Journal of Dental Hygiene published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Objectives: Pain is affecting acceptance of supportive periodontal therapy and primary periodontitis prevention. Our objective was to evaluate the efficacy of a 1-week pre-treatment use of dentinal-hypersensitivity-reducing mouth-rinses (DHM) in periodontal maintenance (SPT) or dental prophylaxis patients. Material and methods: One hundred fifty-five participants attending for professional mechanical plaque removal (PMPR) were randomly assigned to use a mouth-rinse twice daily for 1 week prior to their next PMPR. Rinses were containing either potassium oxalate (n = 52), arginine (n = 52), or herbal extracts (n = 51). At baseline and reassessment, procedural pain was assessed by visual analogue scale (VAS) and verbal rating scale (VRS). Self-reported efficacy was documented. Results: No inter-group differences were estimated between both test groups and the control for baseline and reassessment means (VAS, VRS). In the SPT group, VAS reduction and self-reported efficacy were found (p < 0.05). Conclusion: The 1-week use of DHM failed to show a predictable effect on discomfort during PMPR overall. Around 20% of the patients showed a quantifiable benefit from both test mouth-rinses, whereas more than 50% reported a subjective pain reduction. Focusing patients undergoing supportive periodontal therapy, quantifiable effects were found for both test groups. From a patient's point of view, DHM might be a suitable adjunct to enhance procedural comfort, especially in patients with a history of periodontitis. Clinical relevance: The 1-week use of the dentinal-hypersensitivity-reducing mouth-rinses prior to professional-mechanical-plaque-removal showed to be a suitable adjunct to enhance procedural comfort during instrumentation, especially in patients undergoing supportive periodontal therapy. Registration number: DRKS00010811 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine whether removing the superstructure of the implant bridge in cases of full-arch implant restorations for edentulous atrophic arches at the abutment level during professional mechanical plaque removal (PMPR) affects bacterial counts. Methods: This crossover clinical trial included 20 patients who received screw-retained prostheses at the abutment level. Patients were randomly assigned to two groups and received PMPR with or without removal of the superstructure. After a three-month washout period, the type of treatment was reversed between the groups. Bacterial counts around the cylinder and abutment were measured and compared before and after PMPR. Results: Bacterial numbers around the cylinder and abutment were significantly reduced after PMPR as compared with before PMPR regardless of whether the superstructure was removed (p < 0.05). However the ratio of subjects with bacteria at 1.0 x 105 colony forming unit/ml (cfu/ml) or more after PMPR was significantly higher when the superstructure was not removed (p < 0.05). Among patients with bacterial counts of less than 10 x 105 cfu/ml, bacterial loads were reduced to less than 1.0 x 105 cfu/ml even when superstructures were not removed. Among patients with bacterial load of >10 x 105 cfu/ml, bacterial numbers were not reduced to <1.0 x 105 cfu/ml when PMPR was performed without removing the superstructure. Conclusions: Removal of the superstructure in cases of full-arch implant restorations for edentulous atrophic arches during PMPR reduces bacterial numbers around the implant bridge at the abutment level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Evaluation of the safety and efficacy of a topical lidocaine gel 2% (LG) during scaling and root planing (SRP) and professional mechanical plaque removal (PMPR).Materials and methods: The anesthetic effects as well as unwanted effects of LG prior to or during SRP and PMPR were evaluated in an observational, non-randomized, non-interventional study design. A total of 385 treatments were recorded in 68 study centers all over Germany. Rating of the anesthetic effect of LG by treating personnel and patients using a four-item verbal rating scale (VRS), tolerability, safety (adverse effects), and need for additional local injection anesthesia (ALI).Results: In SRP as well as in PMPR, application of LG allowed a sufficiently pain-free therapy in more than 90% of the patients as stated on the VRS (SRP: 97.8%, PMPR: 93.75%). Overall, ALI was needed in only 4.23% of the patients treated (SRP: 5.3%, PMPR: 2.62%). One adverse effect occurred within the observation.Conclusions: Application of LG may offer a safe and effective way to achieve pain-free therapy in periodontal patients.Clinical relevance: Patient compliance is key to the success of periodontal maintenance therapy. Effective and safe pain control during various kinds of periodontal therapy might increase patient compliance and therefore contribute to the long-term treatment success, among other factors. With regard to the patients observed in this study, 47% had previously received periodontal maintenance therapy and were therefore familiar with the treatment and the associated pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine whether removing the superstructure of the implant bridge in cases of full-arch implant restorations for edentulous atrophic arches at the abutment level during professional mechanical plaque removal (PMPR) affects bacterial counts., Methods: This crossover clinical trial included 20 patients who received screw-retained prostheses at the abutment level. Patients were randomly assigned to two groups and received PMPR with or without removal of the superstructure. After a three-month washout period, the type of treatment was reversed between the groups. Bacterial counts around the cylinder and abutment were measured and compared before and after PMPR., Results: Bacterial numbers around the cylinder and abutment were significantly reduced after PMPR as compared with before PMPR regardless of whether the superstructure was removed (p <0.05). However the ratio of subjects with bacteria at 1.0 × 105 colony forming unit/ml (cfu/ml) or more after PMPR was significantly higher when the superstructure was not removed (p < 0.05). Among patients with bacterial counts of less than 10 × 105 cfu/ml, bacterial loads were reduced to less than 1.0 × 105 cfu/ml even when superstructures were not removed. Among patients with bacterial load of >10 × 105 cfu/ml, bacterial numbers were not reduced to <1.0 × 105 cfu/ml when PMPR was performed without removing the superstructure., Conclusions: Removal of the superstructure in cases of full-arch implant restorations for edentulous atrophic arches during PMPR reduces bacterial numbers around the implant bridge at the abutment level.