METHODS: One hundred and fifty periodontitis cases and 150 healthy controls, all Yemeni adults 30-60 years old, were recruited. Sociodemographic data and history of oral hygiene practices and oral habits were obtained. Plaque index (PI) was measured on index teeth. Periodontal health status was assessed using Community Periodontal Index (CPI) and Clinical Attachment Loss (CAL) according to WHO. Periodontitis was defined as having one or more sextants with a CPI score ≥ 3. Multiple logistic regression modelling was employed to identify distal, intermediate and proximal determinants of periodontitis, while ordinal regression was used to identify those of CAL scores.
RESULTS: In logistic regression, PI score was associated with the highest odds of periodontitis (OR = 82.9) followed by cigarette smoking (OR = 12.8), water pipe smoking (OR = 10.2), male gender (OR = 3.4) and age (OR = 1.19); on the other hand, regular visits to the dentist (OR = 0.05), higher level of education (OR = 0.37) and daily dental flossing (OR = 0.95) were associated with lower odds. Somewhat similar associations were seen for CAL scores (ordinal regression); however, qat chewing was identified as an additional determinant (OR = 4.69).
CONCLUSION: Water pipe smoking is identified as a risk factor of periodontitis in this cohort in addition to globally known risk factors. Adjusted effect of qat chewing is limited to CAL scores, suggestive of association with recession.
Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the relationship between khat and occlusal caries progression.
Methods: A cohort study was carried out among 98 Yemeni khat chewers and 101 non-chewers aged 18-35 years old with early occlusal caries lesions. All participants answered questions on socio-demographic, khat , oral hygiene , sugar intake, and oral health knowledge at baseline. All posterior teeth with an early enamel lesion on occlusal surfaces detected by visual inspection at baseline were also subjected to DIAGNOdent assessment to confirm early lesion (DIAGNOdent reading 13-24). Participants were re-examined after 12 weeks. Caries progression was considered to occur when the DIAGNOdent reading was >25. Data were analyzed using Relative risk, Mann-Whitney U test, a Wilcoxon Signed-Rank test and logistic regression analysis.
Results: Occlusal caries progression incidence between khat chewers and non-chewers, with the relative risk was 1.68. There was no significant difference in occlusal caries progression on chewing side and non-chewing side among khat chewers. Khat chewing was a statistical predictor for those with low income.
Conclusion: Khat is a risk factor for occlusion caries progression among low income group.
Methods: One hundred and eighty-eight healthy subjects aged between 18 and 50 years with varying oral hygiene status who gave consent to participate were included in this cross-sectional study. The subjects were recruited from primary oral health care of MAHSA University. Oral hygiene of all the participants was measured using Oral Hygiene Index-Simplified (OHI-S). Stimulated saliva collected using paraffin wax was analyzed for salivary statherin, aPRP, and calcium. The relationship between salivary statherin, aPRP, and calcium levels with OHI-S was assessed using Spearman's Rank correlation coefficient; the strength of relationship was assessed by multiple linear regression analysis.
Results: The study found a weak positive correlation (r = 0.179, p = 0.014) between salivary statherin and OHI-S; weak negative correlation (r = -0.187, p = 0.010) between salivary aPRP and OHI-S; and moderate negative correlation between salivary statherin and salivary aPRP levels (r = -0.50, p
OBJECTIVES: To compare manual and powered toothbrushes in everyday use, by people of any age, in relation to the removal of plaque, the health of the gingivae, staining and calculus, dependability, adverse effects and cost.
SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 23 January 2014), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2014, Issue 1), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 23 January 2014), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 23 January 2014) and CINAHL via EBSCO (1980 to 23 January 2014). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register and the WHO Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials of at least four weeks of unsupervised powered toothbrushing versus manual toothbrushing for oral health in children and adults.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by The Cochrane Collaboration. Random-effects models were used provided there were four or more studies included in the meta-analysis, otherwise fixed-effect models were used. Data were classed as short term (one to three months) and long term (greater than three months).
MAIN RESULTS: Fifty-six trials met the inclusion criteria; 51 trials involving 4624 participants provided data for meta-analysis. Five trials were at low risk of bias, five at high and 46 at unclear risk of bias.There is moderate quality evidence that powered toothbrushes provide a statistically significant benefit compared with manual toothbrushes with regard to the reduction of plaque in both the short term (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.50 (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.70 to -0.31); 40 trials, n = 2871) and long term (SMD -0.47 (95% CI -0.82 to -0.11; 14 trials, n = 978). These results correspond to an 11% reduction in plaque for the Quigley Hein index (Turesky) in the short term and 21% reduction long term. Both meta-analyses showed high levels of heterogeneity (I(2) = 83% and 86% respectively) that was not explained by the different powered toothbrush type subgroups.With regard to gingivitis, there is moderate quality evidence that powered toothbrushes again provide a statistically significant benefit when compared with manual toothbrushes both in the short term (SMD -0.43 (95% CI -0.60 to -0.25); 44 trials, n = 3345) and long term (SMD -0.21 (95% CI -0.31 to -0.12); 16 trials, n = 1645). This corresponds to a 6% and 11% reduction in gingivitis for the Löe and Silness index respectively. Both meta-analyses showed high levels of heterogeneity (I(2) = 82% and 51% respectively) that was not explained by the different powered toothbrush type subgroups.The number of trials for each type of powered toothbrush varied: side to side (10 trials), counter oscillation (five trials), rotation oscillation (27 trials), circular (two trials), ultrasonic (seven trials), ionic (four trials) and unknown (five trials). The greatest body of evidence was for rotation oscillation brushes which demonstrated a statistically significant reduction in plaque and gingivitis at both time points.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Powered toothbrushes reduce plaque and gingivitis more than manual toothbrushing in the short and long term. The clinical importance of these findings remains unclear. Observation of methodological guidelines and greater standardisation of design would benefit both future trials and meta-analyses.Cost, reliability and side effects were inconsistently reported. Any reported side effects were localised and only temporary.
OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this review were to assess the effects of various interventions used to control halitosis due to oral diseases only. We excluded studies including patients with halitosis secondary to systemic disease and halitosis-masking interventions.
SEARCH METHODS: Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 8 April 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 3) in the Cochrane Library (searched 8 April 2019), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 8 April 2019), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 8 April 2019). We also searched LILACS BIREME (1982 to 19 April 2019), the National Database of Indian Medical Journals (1985 to 19 April 2019), OpenGrey (1992 to 19 April 2019), and CINAHL EBSCO (1937 to 19 April 2019). The US National Institutes of Health Ongoing Trials Register ClinicalTrials.gov (8 April 2019), the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (8 April 2019), the ISRCTN Registry (19 April 2019), the Clinical Trials Registry - India (19 April 2019), were searched for ongoing trials. We also searched the cross-references of included studies and systematic reviews published on the topic. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) which involved adults over the age of 16, and any intervention for managing halitosis compared to another or placebo, or no intervention. The active interventions or controls were administered over a minimum of one week and with no upper time limit. We excluded quasi-randomised trials, trials comparing the results for less than one week follow-up, and studies including advanced periodontitis.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two pairs of review authors independently selected trials, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We estimated mean differences (MDs) for continuous data, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We assessed the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.
MAIN RESULTS: We included 44 trials in the review with 1809 participants comparing an intervention with a placebo or a control. The age of participants ranged from 17 to 77 years. Most of the trials reported on short-term follow-up (ranging from one week to four weeks). Only one trial reported long-term follow-up (three months). Three studies were at low overall risk of bias, 16 at high overall risk of bias, and the remaining 25 at unclear overall risk of bias. We compared different types of interventions which were categorised as mechanical debridement, chewing gums, systemic deodorising agents, topical agents, toothpastes, mouthrinse/mouthwash, tablets, and combination methods. Mechanical debridement: for mechanical tongue cleaning versus no tongue cleaning, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported organoleptic test (OLT) scores (MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.34 to -0.07; 2 trials, 46 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events. Chewing gums: for 0.6% eucalyptus chewing gum versus placebo chewing gum, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported OLT scores (MD -0.10, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.11; 1 trial, 65 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events. Systemic deodorising agents: for 1000 mg champignon versus placebo, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome patient-reported visual analogue scale (VAS) scores (MD -1.07, 95% CI -14.51 to 12.37; 1 trial, 40 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for dentist-reported OLT score or adverse events. Topical agents: for hinokitiol gel versus placebo gel, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported OLT scores (MD -0.27, 95% CI -1.26 to 0.72; 1 trial, 18 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events. Toothpastes: for 0.3% triclosan toothpaste versus control toothpaste, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported OLT scores (MD -3.48, 95% CI -3.77 to -3.19; 1 trial, 81 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events. Mouthrinse/mouthwash: for mouthwash containing chlorhexidine and zinc acetate versus placebo mouthwash, the evidence was very uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported OLT scores (MD -0.20, 95% CI -0.58 to 0.18; 1 trial, 44 participants; very low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events. Tablets: no data were reported on key outcomes for this comparison. Combination methods: for brushing plus cetylpyridium mouthwash versus brushing, the evidence was uncertain for the outcome dentist-reported OLT scores (MD -0.48, 95% CI -0.72 to -0.24; 1 trial, 70 participants; low-certainty evidence). No data were reported for patient-reported OLT score or adverse events.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found low- to very low-certainty evidence to support the effectiveness of interventions for managing halitosis compared to placebo or control for the OLT and patient-reported outcomes tested. We were unable to draw any conclusions regarding the superiority of any intervention or concentration. Well-planned RCTs need to be conducted by standardising the interventions and concentrations.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Eighty-nine previously treated patients with AgP were re-examined. Clinical and radiographic parameters before treatment discontinuation and at re-examination were compared. OHRQoL at re-call was assessed with the short-form Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP-14S).
RESULTS: None of the subjects adhered to suggested periodontal therapy and maintenance after discharge. Mean percentage of sites with probing pocket depth (PPD) ≥6 mm at re-examination was 4.5 ± 5.9%. A total of 182 teeth had been lost over time. Tooth loss rate was 0.14/patient/year. From 68 subjects with documented favorable treatment outcomes, higher percentage of sites with PPD ≥6 mm at re-examination and higher radiographic proximal bone loss was associated with current smoking status. Patients with AgP with <20 teeth at re-call had worse OHRQoL than those with ≥20 teeth. Patients with higher full-mouth mean PPD also reported poorer OHRQoL.
CONCLUSION: Treatment in patients with AgP who smoke and neglect proper supportive care, risk periodontal disease progression. Substantial tooth loss and higher full-mouth mean PPD led to poorer OHRQoL in this cohort.
AIM: To evaluate the clinical performance of restoring class III cavities in anterior teeth of permanent dentition using the ART approach.
METHODS: A longitudinal interventional field study was carried out at two rural primary health centers, Tumkur district, India. A total of 54 teeth in 39 patients were evaluated for the survival rate of class III restorations in permanent anterior teeth using the ART approach in children and adult populations. Evaluation of ART restoration was carried out using Frencken J criteria, the mean procedure time, patient acceptance and reported pain severity during the ART approach were evaluated using a visual analog scale. Calculation of the cost of ART was also performed.
RESULTS: The mean time taken to perform the ART procedure was 14.79 ± 5.8 min with the majority of patients reporting only mild pain. At 6 mo follow-up, 72.2% remained in a good state, but this reduced to 27% at 12 mo. The cumulative survival rate of the restorations was 94.4% at 6 mo and 80.9% at 12 mo follow-up. Estimation of the direct cost for a single class III restoration was 186.50 INR (2.64 USD).
CONCLUSION: ART may be a good comprehensive option for basic oral health care for underserved or inaccessible populations, and preventive care for patients.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: A cross-sectional survey research design was employed in this study. Self-administered questionnaire of the validated "Graduating medical students' Knowledge and Attitudes Survey Regarding Infant's oral health care" were utilized to ascertain the baseline levels of knowledge and attitudes of graduating medical students' in Kulasekaram hospital. In this regard, a preliminary study with a convenience sample of 100 medical students was conducted so as to assess the knowledge of infant oral health care among graduating medical students in Kulasekaram. This study, while limited in sample size, benefits the general practitioners as target readers to assess the abnormalities in children at early stages of life.
RESULTS: The results of the study revealed that the mean percentage score overall was 65.7%. Only 3.2% of participants obtained a passing score of 80% or greater. Widespread knowledge deficits and poor attitudes among graduating medical students were noted in this study, particularly in the domain of pharmacological management of pain. Positive correlations were observed between the respondents' score and level of education. Further analysis revealed respondents had an inaccurate self-evaluation of their pain management knowledge.
CONCLUSION: The results of this study reveal that there is dearth of knowledge and attitudes of graduating medical students' regarding infant oral health care. Educational and quality improvement initiatives in oral health care of infants could enhance medical student's knowledge baseline in the area of oral health care and possibly improve practices.