Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
BMC Oral Health ; 13: 58, 2013 Oct 26.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-24160246

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Periodontal disease is the most common oral disease affecting adults, and although it is largely preventable it remains the major cause of poor oral health worldwide. Accumulation of microbial dental plaque is the primary aetiological factor for both periodontal disease and caries. Effective self-care (tooth brushing and interdental aids) for plaque control and removal of risk factors such as calculus, which can only be removed by periodontal instrumentation (PI), are considered necessary to prevent and treat periodontal disease thereby maintaining periodontal health. Despite evidence of an association between sustained, good oral hygiene and a low incidence of periodontal disease and caries in adults there is a lack of strong and reliable evidence to inform clinicians of the relative effectiveness (if any) of different types of Oral Hygiene Advice (OHA). The evidence to inform clinicians of the effectiveness and optimal frequency of PI is also mixed. There is therefore an urgent need to assess the relative effectiveness of OHA and PI in a robust, sufficiently powered randomised controlled trial (RCT) in primary dental care. METHODS/DESIGN: This is a 5 year multi-centre, randomised, open trial with blinded outcome evaluation based in dental primary care in Scotland and the North East of England. Practitioners will recruit 1860 adult patients, with periodontal health, gingivitis or moderate periodontitis (Basic Periodontal Examination Score 0-3). Dental practices will be cluster randomised to provide routine OHA or Personalised OHA. To test the effects of PI each individual patient participant will be randomised to one of three groups: no PI, 6 monthly PI (current practice), or 12 monthly PI.Baseline measures and outcome data (during a three year follow-up) will be assessed through clinical examination, patient questionnaires and NHS databases.The primary outcome measures at 3 year follow up are gingival inflammation/bleeding on probing at the gingival margin; oral hygiene self-efficacy and net benefits. DISCUSSION: IQuaD will provide evidence for the most clinically-effective and cost-effective approach to managing periodontal disease in dentate adults in Primary Care. This will support general dental practitioners and patients in treatment decision making. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Protocol ID: ISRCTN56465715.


Assuntos
Aconselhamento , Assistência Odontológica/normas , Higiene Bucal/educação , Doenças Periodontais/prevenção & controle , Atenção Primária à Saúde/normas , Qualidade da Assistência à Saúde , Adulto , Idoso , Cálculos Dentários/prevenção & controle , Assistência Odontológica/economia , Placa Dentária/prevenção & controle , Profilaxia Dentária/economia , Profilaxia Dentária/normas , Seguimentos , Hemorragia Gengival/prevenção & controle , Gengivite/prevenção & controle , Comportamentos Relacionados com a Saúde , Conhecimentos, Atitudes e Prática em Saúde , Humanos , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Higiene Bucal/economia , Bolsa Periodontal/prevenção & controle , Periodontite/prevenção & controle , Medicina de Precisão , Qualidade de Vida , Autocuidado , Autoeficácia , Método Simples-Cego , Escovação Dentária/métodos , Resultado do Tratamento
2.
J Clin Periodontol ; 36(11): 950-7, 2009 Nov.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-19811584

RESUMO

AIM: To compare clinical effects of manual and powered toothbrushes on sites of localized gingival recession over 12 months. To evaluate patterns and the extent of toothbrush bristle wear. METHODS: A longitudinal, single-blind, randomized, parallel group clinical trial compared the effects of one manual and one powered toothbrush on incipient lesions of localized gingival recession. Toothbrush wear was evaluated concurrently by wear index and wear rating. RESULTS: Sixty patients were recruited and randomized to two groups with 52 (26 per group) attending the final visit at month 12. There were no differences between groups for full-mouth plaque index, pocket depth or bleeding on probing at baseline and month 12. There were no differences at target sites for clinical attachment level, pocket depth, bleeding on probing, plaque index, width of keratinized gingiva or maximal height of recession. There were no differences between the wear of the brushes as measured by wear index or wear rating. CONCLUSION: There was no progression of gingival recession in subjects using either toothbrush over 12 months. There was no difference in the overall wear of the powered and manual toothbrushes over successive 3-month periods.


Assuntos
Retração Gengival/classificação , Escovação Dentária/instrumentação , Adolescente , Adulto , Estudos de Coortes , Índice de Placa Dentária , Progressão da Doença , Desenho de Equipamento , Seguimentos , Gengiva/patologia , Hemorragia Gengival/classificação , Retração Gengival/patologia , Humanos , Estudos Longitudinais , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Higiene Bucal , Perda da Inserção Periodontal/classificação , Bolsa Periodontal/classificação , Método Simples-Cego , Propriedades de Superfície , Cremes Dentais/uso terapêutico , Adulto Jovem
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...