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

Results of a Pilot Trial Assessing the Effects of Proper Oral Hygiene and a Probiotic Dietary Supplement on Oral Health in Volunteers with Oral Malodor

Persistent malodor affects many people worldwide and is usually associated with poor dental hygiene. This pilot trial aimed to determine whether proper dental hygiene (DH) and a probiotic dietary supplement support oral health in volunteers with persistent malodor. Volunteers (n = 35) were randomly assigned to the probiotic or placebo cohort. The probiotic cohort (n = 20) brushed and flossed their teeth twice daily and used probiotics for 30 days; the placebo cohort (n = 15) followed the same hygiene practices and used the placebo. The intervention phase was followed by a 30-day follow-up period. Measured outcomes were malodor and tongue-coating scores, probiotic DNA levels, salivary cytokines, and salivary pH. DH and probiotics significantly decreased malodor (~50% during intervention) and tongue coating scores (~45% during intervention). These changes remained through the course of the trial. The probiotic DNA levels increased in the probiotic cohort and dropped in the placebo cohort after the intervention started. The malodor moderately correlated with the tongue coating P. acidilactici level. The addition of probiotics increased IL-10 levels during the intervention and decreased IL-8, TNF-α, and IL-6 by the end of the study. People with malodor may benefit from using DH and probiotics. Additional trials are needed to definitively establish the benefits of probiotic dietary supplements.

Oral Microbiome: A Review of Its Impact on Oral and Systemic Health

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review investigates the oral microbiome's composition, functions, influencing factors, connections to oral and systemic diseases, and personalized oral care strategies.

RECENT FINDINGS

The oral microbiome is a complex ecosystem consisting of bacteria, fungi, archaea, and viruses that contribute to oral health. Various factors, such as diet, smoking, alcohol consumption, lifestyle choices, and medical conditions, can affect the balance of the oral microbiome and lead to dysbiosis, which can result in oral health issues like dental caries, gingivitis, periodontitis, oral candidiasis, and halitosis. Importantly, our review explores novel associations between the oral microbiome and systemic diseases including gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, endocrinal, and neurological conditions, autoimmune diseases, and cancer. We comprehensively review the efficacy of interventions like dental probiotics, xylitol, oral rinses, fluoride, essential oils, oil pulling, and peptides in promoting oral health by modulating the oral microbiome.

SUMMARY

This review emphasizes the critical functions of the oral microbiota in dental and overall health, providing insights into the effects of microbial imbalances on various diseases. It underlines the significant connection between the oral microbiota and general health. Furthermore, it explores the advantages of probiotics and other dental care ingredients in promoting oral health and addressing common oral issues, offering a comprehensive strategy for personalized oral care.

Innovations in oral hygiene tools: a mini review on recent developments

Background

This review examines advancements in oral hygiene aids and their impact on gingival and periodontal health. As periodontal diseases are widespread, effective hygiene is vital. Enhancements in traditional tools and innovations have improved oral hygiene status. Clinical evidence confirms these innovations improve gingival and periodontal health, though proper use and patient adherence are crucial.

Methodology

A comprehensive literature search was conducted using MeSH terms like “Gingivitis/prevention & control*”, “Dental Plaque/prevention & control*”, “Dentifrices”, “Electrical Equipment and Supplies*”, “Toothbrushing”, “Equipment Design”, “Anti-Infective Agents/therapeutic use”, “Oils, Volatile/therapeutic use”, “Dental Devices, Home Care”, “Dentifrices*/therapeutic use”, “Vibration”, “Gingivitis*/drug therapy”, “Gingivitis*/prevention & control”, “Gingival Hemorrhage/prevention & control”, “Anti-Inflammatory Agents/pharmacology”, “Chlorhexidine/pharmacology”, “Mouthwashes/pharmacology”, “Anti-Bacterial Agents/pharmacology”, “Mouthwashes/therapeutic use”, “Anti-Infective Agents, Local*/therapeutic use”, “Mouthwashes/chemistry*”, “Plant Extracts/therapeutic use*”, “Sodium Dodecyl Sulfate/therapeutic use*”, “Treatment Outcome”, “Oral Hygiene/methods”, “Toothpastes/therapeutic use*”, “Hyaluronic Acid/therapeutic use”, “Chronic Periodontitis*/therapy”, “Periodontal Attachment Loss/therapy”, “Probiotics*/therapeutic use”, “Oral Hygiene*”, “Periodontal Index” and so on. This search utilized PubMed and Google Scholar, restricted to English-language publications from 2018 to 2024. The screening process involved reviewing titles, abstracts, and keywords, focusing on randomized clinical trials only. Inclusion criteria focused on novel innovations in conventional oral hygiene methodologies. A total of 86 randomized clinical trial articles met the inclusion criteria.

Results

Recent innovations in traditional oral hygiene tools have markedly enhanced oral hygiene levels and patient compliance. These newer innovations demonstrate substantial efficacy in plaque control and gingival health. Clinical outcomes underscore their pivotal role in improving oral hygiene standards, promoting reduced gingivitis and enhanced patient adherence to oral care regimens.

Conclusion

Advanced oral hygiene aids significantly improve gingival and periodontal health. However, patient adherence and correct usage are crucial for their optimal performance. Incorporating advanced oral hygiene aids into daily practices is essential for achieving optimal periodontal health, and continuous education is necessary to ensure their effective use.

Effectiveness of Chlorhexidine and Aloe Vera Mouthwash in Patients With Periodontal Disease: A Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Aloe vera has gained significant attention in clinical research, and promoting natural substances is a prevailing trend in dentistry.

AIM

This study compares the effectiveness of aloe vera mouthwash and 0.2% chlorhexidine gluconate mouthwash in reducing plaque accumulation and gingivitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A single-masked trial included 270 volunteers who were systemically healthy and aged between 18 and 45 years. The participants were randomly assigned to three groups: Group A (the test group) received aloe vera mouth rinse, Group B (the positive control group) received a placebo (distilled water), and Group C (the negative control group) received 0.2% chlorhexidine. Clinical indicators, which include the plaque index (PI) by Sillness and Loe in 1964 and the gingival index (GI) by Loe and Sillness in 1963, were evaluated at baseline, day 15, and day 30 for all three groups. Participants were directed to rinse their mouths with the specified mouthwash twice daily for 30 days.

RESULTS

Significant reductions in the GI and PI were observed in both aloe vera and chlorhexidine mouthwashes, with a statistical significance of p<0.001. The placebo mouthwash also showed reductions in both the GI and PI, with a significance level of p<0.001. Post hoc analysis revealed no significant differences between the aloe vera and chlorhexidine groups for the GI and PI, with p-values of 0.6 and 0.8, respectively.

CONCLUSION

Aloe vera has proven equally effective as chlorhexidine in reducing plaque and gingivitis. This makes it a viable alternative for treating and preventing gingivitis, appealing to those preferring natural, holistic oral care. Incorporating aloe vera mouthwash into daily routines offers an effective, natural solution for maintaining gum health.

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.

The effectiveness of water jet flossing and interdental flossing for oral hygiene in orthodontic patients with fixed appliances: a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Orthodontic treatment presents challenges with plaque accumulation around brackets, archwires, and elastics, leading to retained plaque and gingival inflammation. Conventional toothbrushing may not be enough, requiring additional oral hygiene aids like interproximal brushes, dental flosses, and water flossers. Limited research exists on comparing water flossing and interdental flossing in orthodontic patients. Therefore, this study aims to assess their effectiveness in maintaining oral hygiene during active orthodontic treatment.

METHODS

A single-blind, randomized, parallel clinical study recruited orthodontic patients with full-mouth brackets and archwires. Thirty participants were randomly assigned to either water jet flossing or interdental flossing groups. All participants were instructed to brush twice daily with a provided toothbrush and toothpaste and use the assigned intervention once daily at night. Clinical measures, including the Gingival Bleeding Index (BI), Plaque Index (PI), and Gingival Index (GI), were recorded at baseline and day 14. Descriptive statistics and statistical tests were performed using SPSS software.

RESULTS

The water jet flossing group demonstrated a slightly higher, albeit non-significant, benefit in plaque removal (median difference of 6.79%%, P = 0.279) and bleeding reduction (median difference of 5.21%%, P = 0.172) compared to the interdental flossing group after two weeks. Both groups showed significant reductions in gingival bleeding index and plaque index from baseline to the 2-week follow-up. The interdental flossing group had median mean percentage differences of 16.13%% (plaque index) and 23.57% (gingival bleeding index), while the water jet flossing group had median percentage differences of 21.87% (plaque index) and 32.29% (gingival bleeding index). No significant changes in gingival index grades were observed in either group.

CONCLUSION

Both water jet flossing and interdental flossing were effective in reducing plaque accumulation and gingival bleeding among orthodontic patients. While no significant differences were found between the two methods, water jet flossing showed a potential advantage. Further research is needed to validate its effectiveness, assess long-term impact, and understand its benefits for orthodontic patients.

Efficacy of Three Interdental Cleaning Methods for Peri-Implant Health Maintenance of Single Implant-Supported Crowns: A Randomised Clinical Trial

PURPOSE

To compare the effectiveness of an interproximal brush, a water flosser, and dental floss in removing plaque and reducing inflammation around implant-supported crowns.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A randomised controlled trial was conducted involving 45 participants with implant-supported single crowns. The participants were randomly assigned to three groups: interproximal brush, water flosser, and dental floss. Plaque index scores, gingival index scores, and interleukin-6 (IL-6) levels were assessed at baseline and after a two-week period. Statistical analysis was performed to compare the outcomes among the groups.

RESULTS

Following the second visit, improvements in plaque control were observed across all three interdental cleaning methods. The water flosser demonstrated a slight reduction in IL-6 levels (60.17 ± 3.07 vs 58.79 ± 4.04) compared to the initial visit, although this decrease was not statistically significant. Conversely, both the interdental brush and dental floss exhibited a slight increase in IL-6 levels at the second visit (60.73 ± 2.93 and 55.7 ± 10.64, respectively) compared to the mean at the first visit (58.38 ± 3.24 and 54.6 ± 2.22, respectively). Among the groups, only the interproximal brush demonstrated a statistically significant difference in IL-6 levels (p=0.008), while no statistically significant differences were observed in the dental floss and water flosser groups.

CONCLUSION

Within the study's limitations, our findings suggest that all three methods of interdental cleaning effectively improve plaque control and reduce gingival inflammation. However, using a water flosser appears to reduce inflammation more effectively, highlighting its potential advantage over the other two methods. Further research is needed to evaluate the long-term efficacy and impact of these methods on implant survival.

A Comparative Review of Water Flossers in Periodontal Therapy

This study investigated the efficacy of water flossers (WFs), devices used to irrigate the interdental and subgingival areas, compared to other interdental care methods, in the management of periodontal disease. A computerized PubMed search was conducted by the author, encompassing the years 1962 to 2023. The year 1962 was selected due to it being the introduction of the first WF. Keywords included "oral irrigator", "efficacy," and "water flossers." The review provided a broad comparative assessment of WFs, rather than an exhaustive detailed article review. We discussed the history and evolution of commercially available WFs and introduced a novel classification system. The research also evaluated the performance of WFs in comparison to traditional and novel interdental care methods, focusing on crucial clinical parameters such as plaque removal efficiency and reduction in gingival inflammation. The results of the study reveal that WFs appear to be superior in the management of periodontal disease and have demonstrated effectiveness in a variety of indices. However, it's worth noting that the author did not statistically analyze any of the data. We identified gaps in the literature and found opportunities for further clinical studies. These findings hold implications for optimal periodontal disease prevention and management, addressing the evolving landscape of oral care practices.