Evidence-Based Practice for the Use of pH Indicator Paper Strip in Oral Medicine: A Literature Review.

The objective of our article is to review the literature and collect the advice of specialists for the evaluation of the reliabilityand appropriate indications of the use of pH paper in oral medicine practice. The literature pertaining to the use of pH paper in oral medicine practice was reviewed, and appropriate indications were suggested by a French multidisciplinary working group of specialists and validated by a lecture committee. By screening PubMed/MEDLINE from 1911 to March 2024, we found 621 articles. All abstracts were read, 22 articles were selected for full-text reading, and 12 were ultimately included in the review. Three more articles from other sources were included. Thus, 15 articles constituted the literature review; seven papers from PubMed/MEDLINE focusing on how to restore the salivary pH balance in cases of periodontitis and early childhood caries (ECC) completed the review. It is concluded that the lack of sensitivity of pH paper must be underlined. A low pH is a cofactor leading to oral pathologies, and the use of pH paper constitutes an easy diagnostic instrument in patients with pH variations correlated to leukemia, diabetic mellitus, or orofacial radiotherapy. The evaluation of salivary pH using pH paper may be used as a quick chairside test, specifically in cases of ECC and uncontrolled severe periodontitis. Early diagnosis of salivary low pH range in children as well as periodontitis with deep pocket associated with a low pH range in adults should lead to the supply of fluoride and prescript sodium bicarbonate-containing dentifrices, respectively. In children, the use of a chewable toothbrush may help reduce plaque and elevate salivary pH.

An Unsafe/Safe Typology in People with Type 2 Diabetes: Bridging Patients' Expectations, Personality Traits, Medication Adherence, and Clinical Outcomes.

Background: Support programs are provided to people with diabetes to help them manage their disease. However, adherence to and persistence in support programs are often low, making it difficult to demonstrate their effectiveness. Aim: To identify the determinants of patients' perceived interest in diabetes support programs because it may be a powerful determinant of effective participation in such programs. Patients and Methods: An online study conducted in April 2021 in metropolitan France on 600 people with diabetes recruited from a consumer panel. A 64-item psychosocial questionnaire including a question asking to evaluate the helpfulness of a support program was used. Univariate, multivariate, and multiple correspondence analyses were performed. Results: The existence of a typology, known as Unsafe/Safe, was discovered, in which patients with type 2 diabetes respond in two distinct ways. Type U (unsafe) patients, who believe that a support program would be helpful, are more likely to be nonadherent to their treatment, have high hemoglobin A1c levels, have at least one diabetic complication, lack information regarding their disease and treatment, rate the burden of their disease and impairment of their quality of life as high, worry about their future, and are pessimistic. Type S (safe) patients have the opposite characteristics. Type U patients can be dichotomized into two broad classes: one in which they lack information regarding disease and treatment and the other in which alterations in the quality of life and burden of the disease predominate. Insulin-treated patients give more importance to the lack of information, whereas noninsulin-treated patients complain primarily about the burden of the disease and impairment of quality of life. Conclusion: This study describes this new U/S typology, proposes a simple method based on a nine-item questionnaire to identify type U patients by calculating a Program Helpfulness Score described herein, and clarifies the nature of the intervention to be provided to them. This novel approach could be applied to other chronic diseases.

A Multinational, Multicenter, Randomized, Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Trial to Evaluate the Efficacy of Cyclical Topical Wound Oxygen (TWO2) Therapy in the Treatment of Chronic Diabetic Foot Ulcers: The TWO2 Study.

OBJECTIVE: Topical oxygen has been used for the treatment of chronic wounds for more than 50 years. Its effectiveness remains disputed due to the limited number of robust high-quality investigations. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of multimodality cyclical pressure Topical Wound Oxygen (TWO2) home care therapy in healing refractory diabetic foot ulcers (DFUs) that had failed to heal with standard of care (SOC) alone. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Patients with diabetes and chronic DFUs were randomized (double-blind) to either active TWO2 therapy or sham control therapy-both in addition to optimal SOC. The primary outcome was the percentage of ulcers in each group achieving 100% healing at 12 weeks. A group sequential design was used for the study with three predetermined analyses and hard stopping rules once 73, 146, and ultimately 220 patients completed the 12-week treatment phase. RESULTS: At the first analysis point, the active TWO2 arm was found to be superior to the sham arm, with a closure rate of 41.7% compared with 13.5%. This difference in outcome produced an odds ratio (OR) of 4.57 (97.8% CI 1.19, 17.57), P = 0.010. After adjustment for University of Texas Classification (UTC) ulcer grade, the OR increased to 6.00 (97.8% CI 1.44, 24.93), P = 0.004. Cox proportional hazards modeling, also after adjustment for UTC grade, demonstrated >4.5 times the likelihood to heal DFUs over 12 weeks compared with the sham arm with a hazard ratio of 4.66 (97.8% CI 1.36, 15.98), P = 0.004. At 12 months postenrollment, 56% of active arm ulcers were closed compared with 27% of the sham arm ulcers (P = 0.013). CONCLUSIONS: This sham-controlled, double-blind randomized controlled trial demonstrates that, at both 12 weeks and 12 months, adjunctive cyclical pressurized TWO2 therapy was superior in healing chronic DFUs compared with optimal SOC alone.

Clinical evaluation of the use of a multifunctional remotely controlled insulin pump: multicenter observational study.

Current insulin pumps now feature advanced functions for calculating insulin dosages, delivering insulin and analyzing data, however, the perceived usefulness of these functions in clinical settings has not been well studied. We assessed the use and patient perceptions of an insulin delivery system (Accu-Chek® Combo, Roche Diagnostics, Mannheim, Germany) that combines an insulin pump and a handheld multifunctional blood glucose meter with integrated remote control functions. This prospective, observational, multicenter study enrolled 74 type 1 diabetes patients within 13 weeks after starting use of the pump system. At 4 to 24 weeks, investigators collected usage data from the latest 14-day period. Seventy-two patients completed the evaluation, aged 39 ± 15 years, diabetes duration 16 ± 13 years, HbA1c 8.3 ± 1.6%. At follow-up, 62 (86.1%) patients used the remote control for ≥50% of all boluses, 20 (27.8%) used the bolus advisor for ≥50% of all boluses, and 42 (58.3%) viewed at least 1 of the e-logbook reports. More than 95% of users appraised the functions as easy-to-use and useful; median scores from VAS (0 = useless to 100 = indispensable) ranged from 72 to 85. A high percentage of study patients used the system's advanced features, especially the remote control feature for bolusing. Overall, patients assessed the functions as useful and easy to use. Results support the implementation of these smart capabilities in further insulin pump developments.