Materials and methods: A total of 40 patients were recruited, (mean age = 23 years) and were assigned to low and moderate caries risk groups (n = 20). Eighty occlusal surfaces of posterior teeth were examined for early caries lesion visually and using SoproLife® at baseline and at a recall visit six months later. At baseline visit, patients were given oral hygiene education, fluoridated toothpaste for homecare and topical fluoride application. SoproLife® images acquired were analysed using Image J software version 1.50. Difference in the mean value of intensity of the red wavelength spectrum between baseline and recall visits, (ΔI), were analysed for both risk groups. ΔI for upper and lower first molar teeth were also analysed.
Results: Results show no statistical difference for ΔI between low and moderate risk groups (p = 0.13). There is no statistical difference in ΔI within the low caries risk group (p = 0.42) but there is significant difference in the moderate risk group (p = 0.02). No statistically significant difference in ΔI value between upper first molars (UFM) (p = 0.80) and lower first molars (LFM) (p = 0.07) were detected. There was also no statistically significant difference in ΔI value within the upper and lower first molars (UFM: p = 0.31, LFM: p = 0.27).
Conclusion: SoproLife® generated images did not show significant differences in remineralisation of early caries between low and moderate caries risk patients and between the upper first and lower first permanent molars in these patients.
Methods: A quantitative cross-sectional study conducted in two different cities of Malaysia. A convenience sampling approach was adopted. A total of 787 participants agreed to participate in the current research. A validated questionnaire translated into national language was used for data collection.
Statistical Analysis Used: Data analysis was performed using Statistical Package for Social Sciences version 20.
Results: About 302 respondents were in the age range of 18 - 25 years old (38.4%). There were marginally more females (55.7%) than males (44.3%). Although 99.9% of the participants used a toothbrush, a significant majority (n = 590, 75%) used more than a single device to maintain their oral hygiene. Only 311 respondents knew that toothpicks were inappropriate to use to remove food between teeth and gums, while a majority (n = 592, 75.2%) did not realize that some mouthwashes can stain the teeth. Less than half (42.1%) knew that improper use of miswak might harm the teeth.
Conclusions: Although their oral hygiene behaviors are relatively at a higher level, their perceived oral health benefits did not compare well.
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.
Subjects and Methods: Two groups of 40 patients each having dentinal hypersensitivity were treated using 8% proarginine and iontophoresis. The patients were recalled after 1, 2, and 4 weeks. The scores were tabulated and the results were analyzed using SPSS statistical software.
Results: Visual analog scale between the two groups showed a significant difference from the 1st week till the 4th week. ANOVA values showed the reduction in the dentinal hypersensitivity in Group 2 using the iontophoresis along with the 8.0% arginine-calcium carbonate toothpaste. The Cochran-Mantel-Haenszel correlation test of the Schiff's dentinal hypersensitivity cross-tabulation showed P < 0.001 which was statistically significant reduction after the 4th week following the application of 8.0% arginine-calcium carbonate along with iontophoresis.
Conclusion: Iontophoresis, when used along with Colgate® Sensitive Pro-Relief™ toothpaste, can provide additional benefit as this provides a better sealing effect.
METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study. A total of 92 preschool children (4-6 years) were invited to participate with their parents/guardians. Nine parameters of toothbrushing behaviour were assessed from parental responses (questionnaire) and observation of child and parents/guardians (video recording). Oral examination included recording plaque, gingival and dental caries indices. BORIS software was used to assess toothbrushing parameters and Smart PLS was used to perform association with a second-generation multivariate analysis to create models with and without confounding factors.
RESULTS: Girls were slightly more (53%) than boys (47%). Children aged 4 years were slightly more in number (38%), followed by 6-year-olds and 5-year-olds. Nearly, 90% parents had tertiary education and 46% had more than 2 children. Differences were recorded in the reported and observed behaviour. Thirty-five percent parents/guardians reported using pea-size toothpaste amount but only 28% were observed. Forty percent reported to brush for 30 s-1 min, however 51% were observed to brush for 1-2 min. Half the children were observed to use fluoridated toothpaste (F