Clinical and biochemical evaluation of oral irrigation in patients with peri-implant mucositis: a randomized clinical trial

Oral Irrigation Devices: A Scoping Review

OBJECTIVES

Self-performed oral hygiene is essential for preventing dental caries, periodontal, and peri-implant diseases. Oral irrigators are adjunctive oral home care aids that may benefit oral health. However, the effects of oral irrigation on oral health, its role in oral home care, and its mechanism of action are not fully understood. A comprehensive search of the literature revealed no existing broad scoping reviews on oral irrigators. Therefore, this study aimed to provide a comprehensive systematic review of the literature on oral irrigation devices and identify evidence gaps.

METHODS

The Joanna Briggs Institute and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews guidelines were utilized to prepare the review. Four databases and eight gray literature sources were searched for English publications across any geographical location or setting.

RESULTS

Two hundred and seventy-five sources were included, predominantly from scientific journals and academic settings. Most studies originated from North America. Research primarily involved adults, with limited studies in children and adolescents. Oral irrigation was safe and well-accepted when used appropriately. It reduced periodontal inflammation, potentially by modulating the oral microbiota, but further research needs to clarify its mechanism of action. Promising results were reported in populations with dental implants and special needs. Patient acceptance appeared high, but standardized patient-reported outcome measures were rarely used. Anti-inflammatory benefits occurred consistently across populations and irrigant solutions. Plaque reduction findings were mixed, potentially reflecting differences in study designs and devices.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral irrigators reduce periodontal inflammation, but their impact on plaque removal remains unclear. Well-designed, sufficiently powered trials of appropriate duration need to assess the clinical, microbiological, and inflammatory responses of the periodontium to oral irrigation, particularly those with periodontitis, dental implants, and special needs. Patient-reported outcome measures, costs, caries prevention, and environmental impact of oral irrigation need to be compared to other oral hygiene aids.

Maintenance of peri-implant health in general dental practice

The long-term maintenance or restoration of peri-implant tissues' health depends on the strategic implementation of preventive measures and interventions. These measures should be initiated before implant placement and continued throughout a patient's lifetime, as part of a tailored and comprehensive supportive peri-implant care (SPIC) programme. Central to the clinical efforts of maintaining and rehabilitating peri-implant tissues are several key factors, including the ongoing assessment and frequent monitoring of tissue health and stability, proactive oral health promotion, the control of risk factors and indicators and the provision of professional plaque biofilm removal. It is of paramount importance to underline that SPIC should not limit its scope exclusively to patients already in a state of peri-implant health; in fact, it is imperative that it should extend its protective effect to individuals who have been previously diagnosed and treated for peri-implant diseases, focusing on preventing its recurrence and progression, thereby avoiding further complications, such as implant loss.This narrative review presents an overview of the current literature on the maintenance of peri-implant tissues' health and the steps of SPIC providing insights into the critical factors to be considered when managing dental implant patients in the general dental practice.

Effects of water flossing on gingival inflammation and supragingival plaque microbiota: a 12-week randomized controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

The effects of water flossing on dental plaque removal have been suggested, but its ecological impact on dental plaque microbiota needs further investigation. In addition, whether this plaque control measure by water flossing promotes the control of halitosis still needs clinical validation. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of water flossing on gingival inflammation and supragingival plaque microbiota.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Seventy participants with gingivitis were randomly assigned to control (toothbrushing) and experimental (toothbrushing + water flossing) groups (n = 35). Participants were recalled at 4, 8, and 12 weeks, and their gingival index, sulcus bleeding index, bleeding on probing, dental plaque index, and oral malodor values were measured. The microbiota of supragingival plaque was further investigated using 16S rRNA sequencing and qPCR.

RESULTS

Sixty-three participants completed all revisits (control: n = 33; experimental: n = 30). The experimental and control groups exhibited similar clinical characteristics and dental plaque microbiota at baseline. Adjunctive water flossing effectively reduced the gingival index and sulcus bleeding index as compared to the toothbrushing control group. The water-flossing group showed reduced oral malodor at week 12 as compared to the baseline. Consistently, the water-flossing group exhibited altered dental plaque microbiota at week 12, characterized by a depletion of Prevotella at genus level and Prevotella intermedia at species level as compared to the toothbrushing control. In addition, the plaque microbiota of water-flossing group exhibited a more aerobic phenotype, while the control group was more anaerobic.

CONCLUSIONS

Daily water flossing can effectively alleviate gingival inflammation and reduce oral malodor, possibly by depleting oral anaerobes and altering the oral microbiota to a more aerobic phenotype.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Water flossing adjunctive to toothbrushing effectively alleviated gingival inflammation, representing a promising oral hygiene practice to promote oral health.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry ( http://www.chictr.org.cn/showprojen.aspx?proj=61797 , #ChiCTR2000038508) on September 23, 2020.

Efficacy of power-driven interdental cleaning tools: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

To summarize the available evidence on the efficacy of power-driven interdental cleaning tools (PDICTs) as an adjunct to tooth brushing compared to tooth brushing alone or tooth brushing combined with any other non-PDICT in terms of interproximal plaque and gingival bleeding reduction in gingivitis patients.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic literature search was performed in three databases until March 20, 2022 with the following main eligibility criteria: (1) randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) with (2) at least 28 days of follow-up in (3) gingivitis patients. Interproximal plaque and bleeding values were defined as the primary outcome variables and used for pair-wise meta-analyses.

RESULTS

Sixteen RCTs were identified including data from 1258 participants at the final evaluation. Eight studies each investigated the effect of either a liquid-based or mechanical PDICT; one of these studies tested additionally a combined liquid-based and mechanical PDICT. Tooth brushing combined with a liquid-based PDICT compared to tooth brushing alone did not result in better interproximal plaque values but in significantly lower interproximal bleeding values. Tooth brushing combined with either a liquid-based PDICT or with a mechanical PDICT compared to tooth brushing and flossing achieved comparable interproximal plaque and bleeding values. The majority of studies reporting on patient compliance/preference favored the use of a PDICT, and except for a single study, which was reporting soft tissue trauma in two subjects from improper use of a mechanical PDICT, none of the studies reported adverse events.

CONCLUSIONS

Daily use of PDICT as an adjunct to tooth brushing significantly reduces interproximal bleeding. This effect appears comparable to that of flossing, while PDICT may achieve higher patient acceptance/compliance.

Adjunctive Use of Active Compounds such as Chlorhexidine in the Nonsurgical Treatment of Peri-Implant Mucositis for Oral Health: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Background. Peri-implant mucositis (PiM) is characterized as a reversible inflammatory change of the peri-implant soft tissues without alveolar bone loss or continuing marginal bone loss. Without proper control of PiM, the reversible inflammation may advance to peri-implantitis (PI). Mechanical debridement (MD) by the implant surface is the most common and conventional nonsurgical approach to treat PiM but with limitations in complete resolution of diseases. For more than a decade, chlorhexidine (CHX) and active compounds has been investigated in the treatment of PiM. Therefore, the aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the efficacy of CHX treatment in combination with MD versus MD alone or MD+placebo in patients with PiM on their oral health problems. Methods. A search using electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Science Direct databases, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) and a manual search up to May 2022 were performed independently by 2 reviewers and included eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing MD+CHX versus MD alone or MD+placebo. The assessment of quality for all the selected RCTs was conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Disease resolution of PiM (absence of BOP), IPPD reduction, IBOP% reduction, and PI% reduction after treatment as primary outcomes were selected as the primary outcomes. Weighted mean differences (WMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were for continuous outcomes, and odds ratio (OR) and 95% CI was for dichotomous outcomes using random effect models. This review is registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD42020221989). Results. After independent screening, nine eligible studies were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. Meta-analysis showed OR of disease resolution between test and control groups amounted to 1.41 (95% CI (0.43, 4.65), $P=0.57$ , $I^2=65\%$ ) not favoring adjunctive CHX treatment over MD alone. Through subgroup analysis, the results indicated that oral irrigation of CHX may have more benefits on the resolution of PiM. Similarly, CHX did not significantly improve IPPD reduction at both short-, medium-, and long-term follow-up. Only a short-term effect has been observed at IBOP% reduction ( $\text{WMD}=13.88$ , 95% CI (10.94, 16.81), $P<0.00001$ , $I^2=9\%$ ), IPI reduction ( $\text{WMD}=0.12$ , 95% CI (0.09, 0.14), $P<0.00001$ , $I^2=0\%$ ), and FMPPD reduction ( $\text{WMD}=0.19$  mm, 95% CI (0.03, 0.35), $P=0.02$ , $I^2=0\%$ ) with adjunctive CHX application. Conclusion. Adjunctive CHX application may have some benefits to improve the efficacy of MD in PiM treatment by reducing IBOP%, IPI, and FMPPD in short-term. But these benefits disappeared at medium- and long-term follow-up. In order to achieve better disease resolution of PiM, adjunctive CHX irrigation with MD may be suggested and has positive potential. Well-designed large clinical trials are needed in future.