ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The aim was to assess the effectiveness of 0.12% chlorhexidine (CHX) and a Salvadora persica (SP)-based mouthwash in reducing periodontal inflammation and whole salivary interleukin (IL)-1ß levels after non-surgical periodontal therapy in young light cigarette-smokers. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Self-reported current cigarette-smokers and never-smokers with periodontal inflammation were included. All patients underwent non-surgical periodontal therapy. Patients were divided into 2 subgroups. In the test- and control-group, patients were advised to rinse with a Salvadora persica-based mouthwash and a non-alcoholic 0.12% CHX twice daily for 2-weeks, respectively. Full-mouth plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), probing depth (PD) and clinical attachment loss (AL) and whole salivary IL-1ß were measured at baseline and at 3-months' follow-up. Significance was set at p<0.01. RESULTS: 34 cigarette-smokers and 34 never-smokers were included. At 3-months of follow-up, PI, PD, and clinical AL were comparable with their respective baseline values among cigarette-smokers. In never-smokers, there was a significant reduction in scores of PI (p<0.01), GI (p<0.01) and PD (p<0.01) at 3-months of follow-up compared with baseline. At 3-months of follow-up, there was no significant difference in PI, GI, PD, and clinical AL among never-smokers in the test- and control-groups. Among never-smokers, there was a significant reduction in whole salivary IL-1ß levels at 3-months' follow-up (p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Usage of 0.12% CHX or a S. persica-based mouthwash following NSPT is ineffective in controlling periodontal inflammation and reducing whole salivary IL-1ß in young light cigarette-smokers compared with never-smokers.
Subject(s)
Salvadoraceae , Tobacco Products , Humans , Smokers , Mouthwashes , Chlorhexidine/therapeutic use , InflammationABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: To compare the effect of five in-office bracket reconditioning methods on: (i) bracket slot width and interwing gap measurements; (ii) the appearance of the bracket bases under scanning electron microscope (SEM), and; (iii) shear/peel bond strength (SPBS). SETTING: Ex vivo study. METHOD: One hundred and twenty-five brackets were initially bonded and were divided into five experimental groups and reconditioning by the following methods: (i) adhesive grinding using green stone (Gp II); (ii) sandblasting (Gp III); (iii) direct flaming (Gp IV); (iv) using the BigJane machine (Gp V), and; (v) application of Buchman method (Gp VI). OUTCOMES: Distortion of the brackets. Scanning electron microscopy of three representative specimens from each group. The remaining brackets were rebonded, then shear/peel forces to failure were measured (SPBS). RESULTS: The ANOVA and multiple comparison test exhibited a statistical, but not clinical, significant increase in the bracket measurements of Group VI. There was a significant reduction (28%) in the SPBS of Group II. Under the SEM, the wire mesh structure was maintained; however, the amount of adhesive remnants greatly varied among the groups. CONCLUSIONS: Although none of the in-office reconditioning methods employed adversely affected the bracket base and/or the bracket measurements, reconditioning with a green stone was not effective. Sandblasting method and direct flaming are recommended because of simplicity and time-saving advantages.
