RESUMO
Preventing biofilm-related risks such as gingivitis and white spot lesions during orthodontic treatments is very challenging. The cleaning efficiencies of AirFloss Ultra and I-Prox P sulcus brushes were evaluated using an orthodontic phantom model. After attaching brackets onto black-coated maxillary KaVo teeth, a plaque substitute was applied. The evaluated tooth surfaces were divided into two areas. Cleaning was performed with an AirFloss Ultra with two (A-2) or four (A-4) sprays or an I-Prox P for two (I-2) or four (I-4) seconds. Images before and after cleaning were digitally subtracted, and the percentage of fully cleaned surfaces was determined (Adobe Photoshop CS5, ImageJ). Statistical analysis was performed by ANOVA and post hoc tests with Bonferroni correction (SPSS 25, p < 0.05). The mean values of total cleaning efficacy were 26.87% for I-2, 43.73% for I-4, 34.93%, for A-2 and 56.78% for A-4. The efficacy was significantly higher for A-4 than for A-2, I-4, and I-2. There were significant differences between the four groups. Repeated cleaning led to an improved result. Within the study limitations, the AirFloss Ultra with four sprays proved to be more efficient than the sulcus brush I-Prox P for cleaning.
RESUMO
Herpes simplex labialis (HSL) is a viral disease that affects the perioral region. No guidelines recommending an effective treatment exist. The treatment of HSL with three different products was examined. Herpatch Serum, a film-forming patch, was compared to Compeed Patches, a set of semiocclusive hydrocolloid patches, and Zovirax Cream (ingredient: 5% acyclovir). In this prospective, randomized, examiner-blind study, 180 patients with recurrent HSL were split into three groups (Compeed: n = 60, Herpatch: n = 60, Zovirax: n = 60) and examined within 24 hours of HSL outbreak (DRKS Registration No.: DRKS00007786). The primary endpoint was healing time. The secondary endpoints were the reaction rate and quality of therapy evaluated by the Clinician's Global Assessment of Therapy (CGAT) and the Subject's Global Assessment of Therapy (SGAT) (0 = no response; 10 = excellent response), respectively. There was no significant difference among the healing times for the different products. The mean (95% confidence interval) was 9.67 days (9.11-10.22) for Compeed, 9.30 days (8.75-9.85) for Herpatch, and 9.80 days (9.30-10.30) for Zovirax. The reaction rate and quality of therapy (CGAT and SGAT) of Herpatch were significantly higher than those of Compeed and Zovirax. Within the study limitations, Herpatch proved to be an effective, non-antiviral alternative in the treatment of HSL.
