The importance of measuring toothpaste abrasivity in both a quantitative and qualitative way.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the relative abrasivity of different toothpastes and polishing pastes both qualitatively and quantitatively. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Acrylic plates were exposed to brushing in a brushing machine with a toothpaste/water slurry for 1 and 6 h. Twelve different toothpastes were used and also four different polishing pastes. The results were evaluated using a profilometer after 1 and 6 h of brushing (corresponding to 2000 and 12 000 double strokes, respectively). A surface roughness value (Ra-value) and also a volume loss value were calculated from the profilometer measurements. These values were then correlated to each other. An unpaired t-test for the difference in the abrasion values between the toothpastes and the abrasion values over time was used. RESULTS: The polishing paste RDA® 170 yielded higher Ra-values than RDA 250®, both after 1 and 6 h of brushing (1.01 ± 0.22 and 8.99 ± 1.55 compared to 0.63 ± 0.26 and 7.83 ± 5.89, respectively) as well as volume loss values (3.71 ± 0.17 and 20.20 ± 2.41 compared to 2.15 ± 1.41 and 14.79 ± 11.76, respectively), thus poor correlations between the RDA and Ra and Volume loss values were shown. Among the toothpastes, Apotekets® showed the highest Ra value after 1 h of brushing and Pepsodent® whitening after 6 h of brushing. Pepsodent® whitening also showed the highest volume loss values, both after 1 and 6 h of brushing. CONCLUSION: This study emphasizes the importance of not only considering the RDA value, but also a roughness value, when describing the abrasivity of a toothpaste. Furthermore, it can be concluded that so called 'whitening' toothpastes do not necessarily have a higher abrasive effect than other toothpastes.

Patient attitudes and expectations of dental implant treatment--a questionnaire study.

The aim of the present study was to evaluate patient attitudes and expectations relative to dental implant treatment. A questionnaire was mailed to all 400 patients that had received dental implant treatment at a large multi-specialist clinic during 2008. The questionnaire included questions relative to the reasons for dental implant treatment, if the patient earlier had considered dental implants, expectations of the treatment, discomfort during and after surgery, and how the patient perceived the esthetic outcome. The response rate was 61% (114 men/130 women). The stated reason for tooth loss was in 50% of the patients periodontitis,19% caries, 8% accidents,13% other reasons, and 10% no stated reason. Almost all patients (96%) were satisfied with the esthetic appearance and also regarding the information of the treatment (94%). Regarding the time between surgery and completion of prosthetic work, 79% (n = 192) found it to be reasonable. 71% (n = 170) thought the cost was what they had expected. 47% of the patients experienced the implant surgery better than expected and 48% as expected. In conclusion, the present study revealed that almost all patients were satisfied with the function and esthetics of the dental implant reconstruction and most patients were also satisfied regarding the costs and treatment duration.

Validation of an algorithm for chronic periodontitis risk assessment and prognostication: analysis of an inflammatory reactivity test and selected risk predictors.

BACKGROUND: Patients with severe forms of chronic periodontitis present with varying degrees of decreased inflammatory reactivity. A previously reported algorithm for chronic periodontitis risk assessment and prognostication is based on the analysis of some 20 risk predictors. One of these predictors is a skin provocation test that assesses the individual patient's reactivity to a lipid A challenge. The aim of this report was to analyze results from validation data for the algorithm with respect to the contribution of results of the skin provocation test as a risk predictor for the progression of chronic periodontitis and to compare these results with the contribution from other predictors, namely smoking, angular bony destruction, furcation involvement, abutment teeth, and endodontic pathology. METHODS: Data from a previously reported clinical validation sample were used for the analysis, including the calculation of quality measures and explanatory values using different types of regression analysis and non-parametric testing. RESULTS: Smoking, endodontic pathology, abutment teeth, angular bony destruction, and furcation involvement presented with individual explanatory values for periodontitis progression between 4% and 13% and highly significant parameter estimates. Explanatory values for the results of the skin provocation test ranged between 2.6% and 5.1% depending on the disease severity group, with a positive predictive value of 82% for the identification of high-risk patients. CONCLUSION: The skin provocation test provided a clinically significant contribution to the quality of analysis with the periodontitis risk and prognostication algorithm, in particular in the selection of high-risk patients for in-depth individual tooth analysis.

Validation of an algorithm for chronic periodontitis risk assessment and prognostication: risk predictors, explanatory values, measures of quality, and clinical use.

BACKGROUND: The American Academy of Periodontology has recently stated that, "[risk assessment will become] increasingly important in periodontal treatment planning and should be part of every comprehensive dental and periodontal evaluation." (J Periodontol 2006;77:1608). Unaided risk assessment and prognostication show significant variability because chronic periodontitis is a multifactorial disease. This report summarizes the clinical validation of an algorithm for chronic periodontitis risk assessment and prognostication. The algorithm is a Web-based analytic tool that integrates some 20 risk predictors and calculates scores indicating levels of risk for chronic periodontitis for the dentition (Level I) and, if an elevated risk is found, prognosticates disease progression tooth by tooth (Level II). METHODS: An independent clinical validation sample was generated in an open, prospective clinical trial and analyzed in a predetermined validation plan. RESULTS: The analyses identified two threshold scores above which significant progression of periodontitis was found. Based on these scores, sufficiently high explanatory values with significant and increasing parameter estimates for increasing risk were established in Level I, justifying detailed analysis tooth by tooth in Level II. Subsequent prognostication of chronic periodontitis in Level II was found to be accompanied by clinically relevant measures of quality in relation to rates of disease progression. Three score intervals representing increasing levels of periodontitis progression were identified corresponding to increasing levels of significant annual marginal bone loss. CONCLUSIONS: The predictors included in the algorithm reflect a relevant selection for periodontitis risk assessment. Risk assessment and prognostication with the algorithm provides the clinician with a validated, reliable, consistent, and objective tool supporting treatment planning.

Pain relief after scaling and rootplaning by monochromatic phototherapy (Biolight).

The present clinical trial was designed to evaluate pain relief after scaling and rootplaning treatment, of patients with periodontal disease, by the use of monochromatic phototherapy (Mpht) (Biolight) vs. placebo. 20 randomly selected patients, 35-75 years of age, with at least ten tooth pockets, with probing depths > or = 5mm, equally shared between at least two opposite quadrants were chosen. Patients using anti-inflammatory drugs or painkillers were excluded. Scaling and rootplaning under local anaesthesia was performed by a dental hygienist, on randomly selected quadrants in all patients. Additional treatment with placebo or monochromatic phototherapy was given to the patients. The patients registered pain on a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) (100 mm) on two occasions, the first after the effect of the local anaesthetic had worn off and the second 24 hours post-treatment. The results showed that, no pain relief could be obtained after monochromatic phototherapy compared to placebo.