ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Subjects with high plaque and gingivitis scores can profit most from the introduction of new manual or powered tooth brushes. To improve their hygiene, not only the technical characteristics of new brushes but also the learning effect in efficient handling are of importance. AIM: : The present study compared the efficacy in plaque removal of an electric and a manual toothbrush in a general population and analysed the learning effect in efficient handling. METHOD: Eighty healthy subjects, unfamiliar with electric brushes, were divided into two groups: group 1 used the Philips/Jordan HP 735 powered brush and group 2 used a manual brush, Oral-B40+. Plaque index (PI) and gingival bleeding index (GBI) were assessed at baseline and at weeks 3, 6, 12 and 18. After each evaluation, patients abstained from oral hygiene for 24 h. The next day a 3-min supervised brushing was performed. Before and after this brushing, PI was assessed for the estimation of the individual learning effect. The study was single blinded. RESULTS: Over the 18-week period, PI reduced gradually and statistically significantly (p<0.001) in group 1 from 2.9 (+/-0.38) to 1.5 (+/-0.24) and in group 2 from 2.9 (+/-0.34) to 2.2 (+/-0.23). From week 3 onwards, the difference between groups was statistically significant (p<0.001). The bleeding index decreased in group 1 from 28% (+/-17%) to 7% (+/-5%) (p<0.001) and in group 2 from 30% (+/-12%) to 12% (+/-6%) (p<0.001). The difference between groups was statistically significant (p<0.001) from week 6 onwards. The learning effect, expressed as the percentage of plaque reduction after 3 min of supervised brushing, was 33% for group 1 and 26% for group 2 at week 0. This percentage increased at week 18 to 64% in group 1 and 44% in group 2 (difference between groups statistically significant: p<0.001). CONCLUSION: The powered brush was significantly more efficient in removing plaque and improving gingival health than the manual brush in the group of subjects unfamiliar with electric brushes. There was also a significant learning effect that was more pronounced with the electric toothbrush.
Subject(s)
Dental Plaque/therapy , Oral Hygiene/education , Toothbrushing/instrumentation , Adult , Dental Plaque Index , Electricity , Female , Humans , Learning , Male , Middle Aged , Periodontal Index , Single-Blind MethodABSTRACT
To quantify objectively the comparative potencies of the antihistamines, loratadine and cetirizine, we determined the dose that inhibits histamine-induced skin reactions by 50% of the maximum response (ED50) for each drug. Cetirizine at 2.5, 5 or 10 mg, loratadine at 10, 20 or 40 mg or placebo were given to 14 healthy female subjects in a randomized double-blind crossover design. Inhibition of the wheal and flare response to the histamine prick test (10, 100 and 500 mg/ml) was evaluated. Depending on the histamine concentrations, the ED50s for wheals were in the ranges 4.3 - 4.7, 2.1 - 2.2 and 1.7 - 1.9 mg cetirizine, 2, 4 and 6 h after dosing, respectively. For loratadine, the ED50 for wheals were in the ranges 35.6 - > 40, 9.1 - 24.1 and 9.1 - 13.9 mg, 2, 4 and 6 h after dosing, respectively. Calculation of the ED50 demonstrated that, on average, cetirizine is seven to nine times more potent than loratadine at inhibiting wheal and flare reactions.
Subject(s)
Cetirizine/therapeutic use , Histamine H1 Antagonists/therapeutic use , Hypersensitivity, Immediate/drug therapy , Loratadine/therapeutic use , Adult , Cetirizine/administration & dosage , Cetirizine/adverse effects , Cross-Over Studies , Dose-Response Relationship, Drug , Double-Blind Method , Female , Histamine/immunology , Histamine H1 Antagonists/administration & dosage , Histamine H1 Antagonists/adverse effects , Humans , Hypersensitivity, Immediate/immunology , Hypersensitivity, Immediate/pathology , Loratadine/administration & dosage , Loratadine/adverse effects , Skin/immunology , Skin/pathology , Skin TestsABSTRACT
This study was developed in an attempt to estimate the prevalence of hepatitis B and C virus markers in the sanitary personnel from dentistry clinics which represents a high risk group concerning both contamination and transmission of the infection. The results of the study showed a higher contamination by virus B than virus C. The distribution of contamination depending upon the position held by the staff members revealed a higher contamination incidence among medium level personnel than among high level personnel. The need to initiate this study is due to the high incidence of contamination with hepatitis B virus which calls for the implementation of prophylaxis measures to protect both the medical personnel and the patients.
