Does a pretreatment with a dentine hypersensitivity mouth-rinse compensate the pain caused by professional mechanical plaque removal? A single-blind randomized controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: Pain is affecting acceptance of supportive periodontal therapy and primary periodontitis prevention. Our objective was to evaluate the efficacy of a 1-week pre-treatment use of dentinal-hypersensitivity-reducing mouth-rinses (DHM) in periodontal maintenance (SPT) or dental prophylaxis patients. MATERIAL AND METHODS: One hundred fifty-five participants attending for professional mechanical plaque removal (PMPR) were randomly assigned to use a mouth-rinse twice daily for 1 week prior to their next PMPR. Rinses were containing either potassium oxalate (n = 52), arginine (n = 52), or herbal extracts (n = 51). At baseline and reassessment, procedural pain was assessed by visual analogue scale (VAS) and verbal rating scale (VRS). Self-reported efficacy was documented. RESULTS: No inter-group differences were estimated between both test groups and the control for baseline and reassessment means (VAS, VRS). In the SPT group, VAS reduction and self-reported efficacy were found (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: The 1-week use of DHM failed to show a predictable effect on discomfort during PMPR overall. Around 20% of the patients showed a quantifiable benefit from both test mouth-rinses, whereas more than 50% reported a subjective pain reduction. Focusing patients undergoing supportive periodontal therapy, quantifiable effects were found for both test groups. From a patient's point of view, DHM might be a suitable adjunct to enhance procedural comfort, especially in patients with a history of periodontitis. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The 1-week use of the dentinal-hypersensitivity-reducing mouth-rinses prior to professional-mechanical-plaque-removal showed to be a suitable adjunct to enhance procedural comfort during instrumentation, especially in patients undergoing supportive periodontal therapy. Registration number: DRKS00010811.

Retrospective investigation of organization and examination results of the state examination in restorative dentistry, endodontology and periodontology under simulated conditions in times of Covid-19 compared to standard conditions when treating patients.

Objective: Primary outcome of this retrospective study was the comparison of state examination results under simulated treatment conditions in times of Covid-19 versus patient treatment under non-pandemic conditions. Additionally, correlation analysis was performed between students' self- and examiners' assessment of the treatment results. Methods: Within 4 hours, 22 examinees each had to place a multi-surface adhesive anterior and posterior restoration, performed an endodontic treatment on a maxillary premolar and a periodontal debridement of one quadrant. All treatments were performed on a model fixed in a phantom head. Compliance with the prescribed hygiene and social distancing guidelines and self-assessment of the practical performance was part of the practical examination as well. One examiner per examination part evaluated anonymously the final results. The historical control was based on the exam results of a cohort from 2019. Mean values (standard deviation), non-parametric correlations (Spearman's Rho) and group comparisons (Mann-Whitney) were calculated for statistical analysis. Results: Examination results under simulated treatment conditions were significantly worse (p<0.05) than in the cohort that took their state exam in patients, with exception of the endodontic partial exam. The overall scores in restorative dentistry and periodontology of both groups, which include a structured theoretical examination, did not differ. The majority of the candidates rated their performance worse than the examiners, and there was no correlation between self- and third-party assessment. Conclusion: In the comparison of two years, a simulated practical examination without patients in restorative dentistry, endodontics and periodontology resulted in matchable results compared with an examination on patients. Equal conditions for the candidates resulting in better comparability and avoidance of ethical dilemmas of patient treatment under examination conditions could also be arguments towards a state examination under phantom conditions in the future.

Efficacy of regular professional brushing by a dental nurse for 3 months in nursing home residents-A randomized, controlled clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: The oral health of nursing home residents is poor for various reasons. Many require help for oral hygiene. Regular professional brushing by a dental nurse should improve oral hygiene. This study aimed to determine the efficacy of regular tooth brushing by a dental nurse on the oral health of nursing home residents. METHODS: This controlled trial randomized participants (n = 50; mean age 83 ± 8 years) to brushing by a dental nurse every 2 weeks for 3 months (n = 25; test group) or oral hygiene procedures performed/controlled by nursing home staff (n = 25; control group). Personal, general and oral health, as well as various oral hygiene parameters-plaque index (PI), gingivitis index (GI), papilla bleeding index (PBI), oral hygiene index (OHI) and Volpe-Manhold Index (VMI)-were evaluated at baseline, after initial professional dental cleaning and before last brushing. RESULTS: At baseline, oral health was impaired according to investigated indices in both groups. After professional brushing for 3 months, there were improvements in PI, GI and PBI, with significant increases compared with the control group in OHI and VMI (P = 0.017 and P < 0.001, respectively). Among the control group, the number of teeth decreased while the root caries index increased (P = 0.002 between groups). CONCLUSIONS: Regular professional brushing every 2 weeks by a dental nurse can be recommended for nursing homes residents to improve oral health parameters and to help reduce root caries incidence as a basis to preserve the number of teeth. Such oral hygiene procedures will maintain and improve the oral health of nursing home residents.

Power bleaching enhances resin infiltration masking effect of dental fluorosis. A randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: Patients with moderate dental fluorosis often feel esthetically compromised. Aim of this RCT was to evaluate the objectively and self-assessed masking effect of resin infiltration alone or in combination with in-office bleaching on dental fluorosis in adults. METHODS: Twenty-seven patients (9 male, 18 female, 24.81 ± 3.7 yrs) with 410 fluorotic teeth (TF 1-4) were randomly assigned to a treatment (BLI) or control group (NBLI). Patients underwent in-office bleaching (25% H2O2) in the BLI or a placebo bleaching (ACP gel) in the NBLI group followed by resin infiltration after two weeks. Standardized digital photographs were obtained at baseline; after bleaching; before and after resin infiltration and after 1, 3, and 6 months. Color differences (ΔE) between sound and fluorotic areas were calculated and patient satisfaction was evaluated using a VAS (1-10). RESULTS: Statistical analysis revealed significant differences in the mean ΔE values 6 months after resin infiltration between the BLI (ΔE = 1.41) and the NBLI group (ΔE = 4.33) (p = 0.024). VAS values increased after resin infiltration (p < 0.05) in both groups. After 3 months patients in the BLI group had higher VAS values than in the NBLI group (p = 0.029). CONCLUSIONS: Findings of this study suggest that resin infiltration alone can effectively mask mild to moderate dental fluorosis in young adults. In-office bleaching with 25% H2O2 before resin infiltration provides significantly better masking effects. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Resin infiltration is a safe and efficient treatment option for masking fluorotic opacities. A priori in-office bleaching with 25% H2O2 enhances the masking effect. This controlled clinical trial is registered in the German Clinical Trials Register #DRKS00010465.

Intrapocket and/or Topical Anesthetic Options Offer an Alternative to Injected Anesthesia During Scaling and Root Planing in Patients With Shallow to Moderate Periodontal Pockets.

ARTICLE TITLE AND BIBLIOGRAPHIC INFORMATION: Intrapocket topical anesthetic versus injected anesthetic for pain control during scaling and root planing in adult patients: systematic review and meta-analysis. Wambier LM, de Geus JL, Boing TF, Chibinski ACR, Wambier DS, Rego RO, Loguercio AD, Reis A. J Am Dent Assoc 2017;148(11):814-24.e812. SOURCE OF FUNDING: Institutional, State University of Ponta Grossa, Ponta Grossa, Paraná, Brazil. TYPE OF STUDY/DESIGN: Systematic review with meta-analysis of data.

Subjective and objective halitosis among patients with Parkinson's disease.

OBJECTIVES: Parkinson's disease (PD) affects oral health, but prevalence of subjective and objective halitosis and the influence of hyposalivation remain unclear. We aimed to explore whether patients with PD suffer from halitosis and to define correlations between halitosis and hyposalivation. We hypothesised that patients with PD suffer more often from halitosis compared to healthy controls, influenced by dry mouth. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Subjective (halitosis, xerostomia visual analogue scale [VAS], short German Oral Health Impact Profile [OHIPG]-14) and objective scales (e.g., organoleptic score, volatile sulphur compounds [VSCs], stimulated whole saliva [SWS]) were assessed from 26 patients with PD and 26 healthy controls. RESULTS: The mean organoleptic score was 0.7 (SD: 0.7) in all patients, and VSCs were either comparable or significantly lower (dimethyl sulphide, P = .010) in PD patients compared with controls, yet more patients with PD perceived halitosis to be stronger (77% vs 54%, respectively; P = .059). Dry mouth was significantly more likely in patients with PD than controls: mean xerostomia VAS 4 (SD: 2) vs 1 (SD: 2), P = .010; SWS 0.4 (SD: 0.4) vs 0.7 (SD: 0.6) mL/min, P < .05); SWS did not correlate with subjective or objective halitosis. Oral health-related quality of life (OHRQoL) was lower in patients with PD than controls (mean OHIPG-14 score 12 (SD: 0.2) vs 5 (SD: 7.0), respectively; P < .05). CONCLUSIONS: Patients with PD suffer from subjective and objective halitosis, dry mouth and impaired OHRQoL. Dry mouth problems do not correlate with prevalence or intensity of halitosis.

Protective Buffering Capacity of Restorative Dental Materials In Vitro.

PURPOSE: To investigate the buffering capacity of restorative materials during a simulated carious and intrinsic erosive attack. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cavities with a volume of 130 µl were milled (Cerec MC XL) out of blocks of Ceram X Mono (CM), Quixfil (QX), Filtek Supreme (FS), Apa Fill 3 (AF), an experimental dual-curing composite containing a bioactive glass (EX), Dyract eXtra (DY), Beautifil (BE), Equia Fil (EQ), Telio CAD (TL) (negative control), TheraCal (TC; positive control), and extracted teeth (ED). 80 µl of lactic acid (pH 4.5) and hydrochloric acid (pH 2.6) were each pipetted into the cavities of two samples of each material. Change of pH in the solutions was measured continuously for 12 min using a calibrated pH electrode. RESULTS: CM, AF, and FS (final pH 3.0-3.2) neutralized hydrochloric acid to a significantly lesser extent than did BE, EQ, DY and QX (final pH 5.0-5.6) (p < 0.05, ANOVA Scheffé). The lactic-acid buffering capacity of CM, BE, and AF was equivalent (final pH 6.3-7.4) to that of ED (7.5), but was surpassed by FS (pH 8.0). pH values for EX and TC (final pH 9.2-11.3) increased significantly (p < 0.05) in response to both acids. CONCLUSIONS: Conventional restorative materials do not buffer better than human teeth. However, the experimental composite demonstrates that buffering against carious and intrinsic erosive acid attacks is technically feasible.

Influence of intra-pocket anesthesia gel on treatment outcome in periodontal patients: a randomized controlled trial.

AIM: Compare the treatment outcome after scaling and root-planing using local anesthesia gel or injected local anesthesia. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Thirty-eight patients with periodontitis and good general health were included in a randomized, single-blind, split-mouth clinical trial. Probing depths and clinical attachment levels were recorded at baseline and 6 weeks after treatment. Performed treatment procedures were scaling and root planing using two types of local anesthesia for separate treatment appointments. Anesthetics used were intra-pocket lidocaine and prilocaine gel (2.5% each) and injected articaine (1:100,000 adrenaline). Type of anesthesia for first appointment was randomized and switched for second appointment. Patients' pain perception and anesthesia acceptance were recorded on questionnaires. RESULTS: No influence of applied type of anesthesia could be detected for change of probing pocket depths and clinical attachment level (p > 0.05). These findings are valid even for deeper pockets. Gel-group had significant higher intra-operative pain perception. In retrospect 69% of patients favored gel. CONCLUSION: Treatment outcome is not compromised by use of anesthesia gel in comparison to injected anesthesia. The same beneficial results for probing pocket depths and clinical attachment gain could be detected. The majority of patients prefer local anesthesia gel despite a slightly greater procedural discomfort.