Comparative efficacy of stabilized stannous fluoride/sodium hexametaphosphate dentifrice and sodium fluoride/triclosan/copolymer dentifrice for the prevention of periodontitis in xerostomic patients: a 2-year randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The primary objective of this study was to compare the efficacy of a stannous fluoride (SnF2) dentifrice relative to a positive control triclosan dentifrice for prevention of clinical attachment loss (CAL) in xerostomic patients. A secondary objective was to compare the dentifrices for root caries remineralization. METHODS: This was a 2-year, randomized, double-masked, parallel-group study. A 0.454% SnF2/sodium hexametaphosphate dentifrice was tested versus a positive control dentifrice (sodium fluoride/0.30% triclosan/copolymer) in 440 medication-induced xerostomic adults identified in a 1-year, run-in phase (no treatment) as high risk for periodontitis and root caries. During the study phase, subjects were stratified based on gender and attachment level into two groups. Subjects brushed twice a day for 60 seconds using their assigned product. Clinical examinations including probing depth, attachment level, bleeding on probing, and root caries remineralization were performed at baseline and 1 and 2 years. RESULTS: A total of 334 subjects were evaluable. During run-in, average CAL relative to initial examination was 1.33 mm. Probing depth increased 0.95 mm. At year 2 in the treatment phase, attachment gain was 0.77 mm for the test group and 0.79 mm for the control group versus baseline. Probing depth decreased 0.57 mm for the test group, similar to the control group (0.53 mm). These changes versus baseline were statistically significant (P <0.01) for each group. Products were not statistically significantly different from each other. Both treatments resulted in similar remineralization for root caries lesions at study completion (P = 0.40). CONCLUSION: The results establish comparable benefits for the SnF2 dentifrice in preventing CAL and root caries versus the sodium fluoride/triclosan/copolymer control in xerostomic patients.

Deproteinized bovine bone and biodegradable barrier membranes to support healing following immediate placement of transmucosal implants: a short-term controlled clinical trial.

This 6-month clinical study evaluated the use of a porous bone mineral matrix xenograft (Bio-Oss) as an adjunct to a biodegradable barrier membrane (Bio-Gide) to support healing following the immediate placement of transmucosal implants into extraction sockets. Twenty adult patients scheduled for tooth replacement with dental implants were accepted for participation. Following implant placement into the extraction site, subjects were assigned to one of two treatment alternatives for the remaining bone defect around the implant: (1) Bio-Oss + Bio-Gide membrane (test); or (2) Bio-Gide membrane (control). The treatment outcome was evaluated after 6 months by the use of clinical and radiographic variables. The null hypothesis of no treatment group differences was tested by ANOVA. At 6 months, the radiographic bone level remained unchanged compared to baseline in the test and control groups. No differences were observed between test and control groups in terms of mean probing attachment level. At proximal sites, the soft tissue margin was located 2.6 mm more coronal than the shoulder of the implant in the test group, compared to 1.3 mm in the control group. The corresponding figures for the lingual aspect were 2.3 mm and 1.1 mm, respectively, and at buccal sites 2.1 mm and 0.9 mm, respectively. The use of deproteinized bovine bone mineral as a membrane support at immediately placed transmucosal implants may offer an advantage in areas with high esthetic demands in terms of soft tissue support.

A study to assess the safety and tolerability of three toothbrushes.

This study evaluated the oral soft tissue safety and tolerability of an experimental powered toothbrush (Crest SpinBrush Pro) compared to two leading manual toothbrushes: an advanced-design manual toothbrush (Oral-B CrossAction) and a flat-trimmed toothbrush (Oral-B 40 Indicator). Manual brushes are generally viewed as safe for use, and as such are appropriate controls. A total of 140 subjects was enrolled in this single-center, randomized, examiner-blind parallel study over a four-week test period. Subjects were instructed to brush in their normal manner, twice per day for 60 seconds per use. An oral soft tissue interview and examination were conducted by a trained dentist examiner at baseline, as well as three days and four weeks after baseline to assess clinical signs and symptoms of oral irritation associated with use of the toothbrushes. Overall, there were 19 adverse events reported for 18 subjects (13% of the population). The adverse events were distributed across test groups with five subjects in the experimental powered brush group, eight in the advanced design manual toothbrush group and five in the flat-trimmed toothbrush group experiencing at least one adverse event. The most frequently reported adverse event was localized irritation/inflammation of the gingiva. All adverse events were mild in severity except for one report of severe hyperesthesia (tooth sensitivity) in the advanced-design manual toothbrush group. There were no statistically significant differences between the groups for the proportion of subjects reporting adverse events at either three days or four weeks of product use. The results of this study indicate that daily use with the Crest SpinBrush Pro powered toothbrush is at least as safe as two leading manual toothbrushes.