MATERIALS AND METHODS: The addressed focused question was "Is there a difference in the resistin levels between individuals with CP and those without CP?" four electronic databases: Medline, PubMed (National Institutes of Health, Bethesda), EMBASE, and Science direct databases from 1977 up to March 2016 for appropriate articles addressing the focused question. EMBASE and Medline were accessed using OVID interface which facilitated simultaneous search of text words, MeSH or Emtree. Unpublished studies (gray literature) were identified by searching the Open-GRAY database and references of the included studies (cross referencing) were performed to obtain new studies. In-vitro studies, animal studies, studies that reported levels of other cytokines but not resistin, letters to the editor and review papers were excluded.

RESULTS: Ten studies were included. Nine studies compared resistin levels between CP and periodontally healthy (H) individuals and reported higher mean serum and GCF levels of resistin in CP patients than the H controls. Two studies showed comparable resistin levels from GCF and serum between diabetes mellitus with CP (DMCP) and CP groups. Three studies included obese subjects and showed comparable serum and GCF resistin levels between obese subjects with CP (OBCP) and CP subjects.

METHODS: Two-fold serial micro-dilution method was used to measure minimal inhibitory concentration (MIC) of aqueous extracts of Gt, Sp and their combinations. Adsorption to hexadecane was used to determine the cell surface hydrophobicity (CSH) of bacterial cells. Glass beads were used to mimic the hard tissue surfaces, and were coated with saliva to develop experimental pellicles for the adhesion of the primary colonizing bacteria.

RESULTS: Gt aqueous extracts exhibited better anti-plaque effect than Sp aqueous extracts. Their combination, equivalent to 1/4 and 1/2 of MIC values of Gt and Sp extracts respectively, showed synergistic anti-plaque properties with fractional inhibitory concentration (FIC) equal to 0.75. This combination was found to significantly reduce CSH (p<0.05) and lower the adherence ability (p<0.003) towards experimental pellicles.

METHODS: A 24 h plaque re-growth, double-blinded, randomized crossover trial was carried out. Participants (n = 14) randomly rinsed with test formulation, 0.12% chlorhexidine (control) and placebo mouthwashes for 24 h. A week before the trial, all participants received scaling, polishing and oral hygiene education. On the trial day, the participants received polishing at baseline and rinsed with 15 ml of randomly allocated mouthwash twice daily without oral hygiene measures. After 24 h, plaque index was scored and then the participants entered a 6-days washout period with regular oral hygiene measures. The same protocol was repeated for the next 2 mouthwashes.

RESULTS: The results were expressed as mean (±SD) plaque index. The test mouthwash (0.931 ± 0.372) significantly reduced plaque accumulation when compared with placebo (1.440 ± 0.498, p  0.0167).

CONCLUSIONS: The test mouthwash has an anti-plaque effect for a 24 h period. Longer-term clinical studies are highly encouraged to investigate its anti-plaque effect for longer periods.

METHODS: This article was divided into the following parts: Part 1 Surface roughness and substance loss: an in vitro study, which involves intact extracted teeth sectioned and treated using a piezoelectric ultrasonic device (PM200 EMS Piezon, Switzerland) with a conventional scaler tip (FS-407) and a Perio Slim (PS) scaler tip (Perio Slim DS-016A). All sectioned samples for tooth surface roughness (n = 20) and tooth substance loss (n = 46) analyses were measured and compared using a 3D surface texture analyser and scanning electron microscope (SEM) respectively, at baseline and following scaling. Part 2 Pain Perception: a clinical study, which was a split mouth study design including 30 participants with gingivitis and/or mild chronic periodontitis; treated with supra-gingival scaling from teeth #13 to #23. Subjects were randomised to group A or group B. Group A was treated first with PS scaler tips, whereas group B was treated first with conventional scaler tips. Pain perception was recorded using the visual analogue scale (VAS).