Effect of cannabis usage on the oral environment: a review

AIM

To evaluate oral environmental changes in cannabis users.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The MEDLINE and Cochrane Central register of controlled trails (CENTRAL) were searched up to April 2007 to identify appropriate studies.

RESULTS

Independent screening of 982 titles and abstracts (MEDLINE-Pubmed) and (Cochrane) papers resulted in seven eligible publications.

CONCLUSION

Based on the limited data, it seems justified to conclude that with increasing prevalence of cannabis use, oral health care providers should be aware of cannabis-associated oral side effects, such as xerostemia, leukoedema and an increased prevalence and density of Candida albicans.

The Additional Effect of a Dentifrice on the Instant Efficacy of Toothbrushing: A Crossover Study

BACKGROUND

Inconclusive evidence exists in the literature with regard to the additional (beneficial) mechanical effect of a dentifrice on plaque removal. A previous split-mouth study found that a dentifrice did not contribute to plaque removal. Because of limitations of the split-mouth model, a crossover design was used to evaluate whether a commercially available dentifrice had an additional effect on mechanical plaque removal during manual toothbrushing.

METHODS

Thirty-six subjects were given a manual toothbrush and a standard dentifrice. After a 48-hour plaque accumulation, subjects brushed under supervision with or without a dentifrice (total time of 2 minutes) in a 2 x 2 crossover design.

RESULTS

Plaque reductions were 50% with and 56% without the use of dentifrice. This 6% difference was statistically significant (P = 0.034). Explorative analysis showed that brushing without a dentifrice was more effective in removing plaque on the approximal surfaces.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of a dentifrice did not contribute to mechanical plaque removal during manual toothbrushing. It seemed that the mechanical action provided by the toothbrush was the main factor in the plaque-removing process.

High and low brushing force in relation to efficacy and gingival abrasion

OBJECTIVES

Does a high brushing force induce more gingival abrasion than a low (regular) brushing force? Furthermore, what is the effect of a low or high force on the efficacy?

METHODS

Thirty-five non-dental students were selected. All received an appointment prior to which they abstained from oral hygiene for at least 48 h. At baseline the teeth and surrounding tissues were disclosed using Mira-2-Tone disclosing solution. Next, the examiner (PAV) evaluated the number of sites with gingival abrasion and the amount of dental plaque (Quigley & Hein) at 6 surfaces of each tooth. In the absence of this examiner, the subject's teeth were brushed by a hygienist (MP) using the Braun/Oral-B-D17 oscillating rotating toothbrush. Brushing was performed in two randomly selected contra-lateral quadrants for 60 s with either a low force (+/-1.5 N) or high force (+/-3.5 N) and in the opposing quadrants for 60 s with the alternative force. Visual feedback was given to control force. The brush was moved from the distal tooth to the central incisor perpendicular to the tooth surface with an angle of approximately 10-15 degrees towards the gingival margin. Next, the number of sites with abrasion and the remaining plaque were assessed again.

RESULTS

The overall baseline gingival abrasion scores were 3.1 and 3.2 sites for high and low force, respectively, and increased to 5.0 and 5.9 sites respectively after brushing. There was no significant difference with respect to incidence of abrasion. At baseline, 48 h. plaque levels were 2.2. The reduction in plaque scores with the low force was 60% and with the high force 56%. This difference was significant.

CONCLUSION

With the oscillating rotating power toothbrush (Braun/Oral-B D17) the use of high force (+/-3.5 N) is less efficacious as compared to a regular low force (+/-1.5 N) while the incidence of gingival abrasion sites was comparable.

The effect of 1% chlorhexidine gel and 0.12% dentifrice gel on plaque accumulation: a 3-day non-brushing model

AIM

The purpose of the study was to compare the effects of four treatments on 'de novo' plaque accumulation. Treatments included tray application of 1% chlorhexidine gel (CHX-Gel), 0.12% chlorhexidine dentifrice-gel (CHX-DFG), a regular dentifrice (RDF) tray application, or 0.2% chlorhexidine mouthwash (CHX-MW) in a 3-day non-brushing model.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The study was designed as a single blind, randomized parallel clinical trial. After professional prophylaxis, subjects abstained from all other forms of oral hygiene during a 3-day non-brushing period. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of the four test groups (CHX-Gel, CHX-DFG, RDF applied in a fluoride gel tray or rinsing with a CHX-MW). After 3 days, the Quigley & Hein plaque index (PI) and Bleeding on Marginal Probing (BOMP) index was assessed. Subsequently, all subjects received a questionnaire to evaluate their attitude, appreciation and perception towards the products used employing a Visual Analogue Scale.

RESULTS

After 3 days, the full-mouth PI means were 0.88 for the CHX-gel regimen, 0.79 for CHX-MW, 1.16 for CHX-DFG and 1.31 for the RDF regimen. The two dentifrices (CHX-DFG and RDF) were significantly less effective than the CHX-Gel or the CHX-MW.

CONCLUSION

Within the limitations of the present 3-day non-brushing study design, it can be concluded that the effect of a 1% CHX-Gel application tray is significantly greater than that of 0.12% CHX-DFG or RDF in inhibiting plaque accumulation. The 1% CHX-Gel applied via a tray and 0.2% CHX-MW rinse were comparably effective.

The effect of a dentifrice and mouth rinse combination containing amine fluoride/stannous fluoride on plaque and gingivitis: a 6-month field study

AIM

To examine the effect of amine fluoride/stannous fluoride (AmF/SnF(2))-containing dentifrice and mouth rinse on plaque formation and gingivitis as compared with habitual oral hygiene procedures with a regular sodium fluoride (NaF) dentifrice.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

In total, 22 general practices participated in this research project. The participants (N=281) were randomly assigned into two groups: the test group received an AmF/SnF(2) dentifrice-mouth rinse combination and the control group received a NaF-containing dentifrice. The patients were requested to brush twice daily for approximately 2 min. The subjects of the test group had to rinse additionally in the evening for 30 s with 10 ml of the mouth rinse.

RESULTS

Both groups started with comparable scores of plaque, bleeding and staining. At 6 months, the plaque scores were 0.95 for the AmF/SnF(2) group and 0.99 for the NaF group (decrease of 16% and 10%, respectively). Bleeding scores, although significantly different from baseline, did not show differences between the two regimes. At the end of the experimental period, the overall staining was more pronounced in the AmF/SnF(2) group (41%) than the NaF group (26%). Both plaque reduction and increase in staining seemed to be correlated to the amount of mouth rinse used in the test group.

CONCLUSION

In instruction-resistant patients recruited from dental practices, the combined use of AmF/SnF(2) did not decrease gingivitis at a significant level in comparison with the regular regime of two times daily brushing with an NaF-containing dentifrice. However, the above-mentioned combination resulted in greater plaque reduction than that observed with the use of the conventional dentifrice. When used according to the manufacturer's instructions, this effect on plaque scores was more pronounced.

Long-term efficacy of a 0.07% cetylpyridinium chloride mouth rinse in relation to plaque and gingivitis: a 6-month randomized, vehicle-controlled clinical trial

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the effectiveness of 0.07% cetylpyridinium chloride (CPC) mouth rinse for reduction of gingival inflammation and inhibition of plaque compared to a vehicle control (VC) mouth rinse over a 6-month period.

MATERIALS & METHODS

Participants (n = 62) used their randomly assigned product as adjunct to toothbrushing. Bleeding, plaque and staining scores were assessed at baseline, 3 and 6 months. Plaque and saliva samples were taken at each assessment monitoring possible shifts in the composition of the microbiota.

RESULTS

A significant difference (P = 0.002) in favour of the CPC mouth rinse, with respect to plaque scores, was found. Bleeding scores at 6 months were not significantly different (P = 0.089). However, when correcting for baseline values, a tendency towards a significant difference in bleeding scores at end trail was observed in favour of the CPC mouth rinse (P = 0.061). Regarding staining at 3 and 6 months, a small but significant difference (8.6% and 10.4%, respectively) (P < 0.0001) was observed with lower scores for the VC group. There was a significant reduction in total anaerobic count in the CPC group at 6 months (P < 0.05). The ratio of aerobes/anaerobes was markedly increased at 3 months, especially in the CPC group. No further differences were observed between groups at 6 months.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of 0.07% CPC mouth rinse was significantly more effective in reducing plaque scores than the vehicle control. Bleeding scores were not different at 6 months. The test product was well accepted and did not cause any serious clinical side effects or negatively affected the microbiota.

Inhibition of “De Novo” Plaque Formation With 0.12% Chlorhexidine Spray Compared to 0.2% Spray and 0.2% Chlorhexidine Mouthwash

BACKGROUND

Chlorhexidine (CHX) is widely accepted as the most effective product in the control of supragingival plaque. It is available in different delivery devices. The aim of this study was to test whether 0.12% CHX spray was as effective as 0.2% CHX spray and 0.2% CHX mouthwash in a 3-day "de novo" plaque formation model.

METHODS

Ninety volunteers were enrolled into a single-blind, randomized, three-group parallel study. They received a thorough dental prophylaxis prior to the test period. Subjects were divided randomly into three equal groups. They were requested to refrain from all forms of mechanical oral hygiene and instructed to use only their assigned product during the 3-day experimental period. After 3 days, the plaque growth was assessed using the Quigley and Hein plaque index (Q&H PI) at six sites per tooth.

RESULTS

After 3 days, the CHX mouthwash group had a mean Q&H PI of 1.17 compared to 1.41 for the 0.2% CHX spray and 1.49 for the 0.12% CHX spray. The difference between the mouthwash and the two sprays was statistically significant, whereas the two sprays did not differ significantly from each other.

CONCLUSIONS

Within the limitations of this 3-day "de novo" plaque formation study, the two sprays were not as effective as the mouthwash in plaque inhibition. No significant difference was found between the two sprays. To achieve the same effectiveness as a mouthwash, a higher dose (number of puffs) of CHX spray may be necessary.

Brushing with and without dentifrice on gingival abrasion

OBJECTIVES

This study was designed to evaluate two factors possibly influencing incidence of gingival abrasion during toothbrushing: (1) the abrasiveness of a dentifrice and (2) the possible influence of feedback of oral sensory perception.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

For this purpose, two separate, single blind, randomized clinical experiments were performed. The two groups of subjects were requested not to brush their teeth 48 h, prior to the experiments. After staining with disclosing solution gingival abrasion sites were recorded as small (< or =5 mm) and large (>5 mm), both before and after brushing. The dentifrice experiment was a split-mouth design, including 36 subjects, brushing their teeth in two randomly selected contra-lateral quadrants, either with or without dentifrice, whereas the remaining two quadrants were brushed, using the alternative choice. The sensory perception feedback experiment was a full-mouth design, including 43 subjects and two separate brushing exercises with use of dentifrice. The first brushing-exercise was performed by a dental hygienist, excluding the feedback of oral sensory perception of the brusher. After a 4 weeks period of familiarization to the manual toothbrush, subjects brushed themselves in the same random order as the hygienist, using a fresh brush, thus including oral sensory perception.

RESULTS

In the dentifrice experiment, the increment of small abrasion sites was 5.86 for brushing with and 5.75 without dentifrice. There was no statistically significant difference between brushing with and without dentifrice. Both with and without dentifrice, more small abrasions were found vestibular, (3.78 and 4.22, respectively) as compared with lingual (2.22 and 1.42, respectively) (p=0.027, p<0.001). In the sensory perception feedback experiment, the increment in small gingival abrasion sites was larger for the subjects brushing themselves (8.86) as compared with the professional brushing (2.94, p <0.0001). Subjects caused more abrasion on the vestibular surfaces (6.28) as compared with the lingual (0.60, p=0.0001), where the professional did not show this difference (vestibular: 1.88, lingual: 1.30, p=0. 1388).

CONCLUSIONS

No statistically significant difference in the incidence of gingival abrasion was found between brushing with dentifrice or without dentifrice. Neither did oral sensory perception seem to affect the incidence of gingival abrasion.

Sonic-powered toothbrushes and reversal of experimental gingivitis

OBJECTIVE

To compare two sonic toothbrushes in relation to the reversal of experimental gingivitis.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Subjects refrained from brushing mandibular teeth for 21 days. During a 4-week treatment phase, the right or left side of the mouth was brushed with either the Sonic Complete (SC) or Sonicare Elite (SE) toothbrush as randomly allocated. Plaque and gingivitis were assessed on day 0, after 21 days of no oral hygiene and after 1, 2 and 4 weeks of brushing twice daily.

RESULTS

Thirty-four subjects provided evaluable data. The experimentally induced gingivitis (EIG) resulted in higher bleeding and plaque scores compared with day 0. The mean plaque scores at day 21 changed from 3.09 to 1.30 for the SC, and from 3.02 to 1.21 for the SE. At the end of the treatment period, there was no significant difference between the two brushes. The mean bleeding scores changed from 1.87 (day 21) to 0.97 for the SC, and from 1.83 to 0.92 for the SE. For the assessments at 1, 2 and 4 weeks post-EIG, both brushes showed a significant decrease in bleeding scores. There were no statistically significant differences between brushes.

Evaluation of several brushing motion combinations in relation to plaque-removing efficacy with Oral-B CrossAction Power: a professional brushing study

AIM

The aim of this study was to evaluate the additional effect of a newly developed battery-operated brush Oral-B CrossAction Power with a hybrid brush head design (CAPB). The brush combines an oscillating/rotating part, a PowerHead(R), with a non-moving part with CrissCross bristles. It was compared with a manual control toothbrush Butler GUM 311 (CTB).

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Thirty subjects were requested not to brush their teeth 48 h prior to the examination, when plaque removal efficacy was assessed by scoring plaque before and after brushing. Plaque was assessed according to the Silness & Loë Index at six sites per tooth. Subjects were brushed by a dentist using one of the four randomly chosen procedures of brushing in each quadrant. The CAPB was used with three different modes of brushing each in different randomly chosen quadrants, with the manual toothbrush being used in the remaining quadrant as a control.

RESULTS

The baseline plaque levels ranged from 1.69 to 1.74 and the end levels ranged from 0.39 to 0.45. In terms of percentage, the results with the four procedures run from 75% to 79%. These differences between the battery brush and manual brush irrespective of the brushing mode used were not statistically significant.

CONCLUSION

The results of this Professional Brushing Study show that the CrossAction Power toothbrush was as effective as a regular manual toothbrush.

[Tooth brushing and gingival abrasion]

It has been known for some time that tooth brushing can have unwanted effects on the gingiva and hard dental tissues. The aim of this study is to evaluate two factors that may be of influence on the incidence of gingival abrasion during tooth brushing. The first factor being the possible influence of feedback through oral sensory perception and the second the possible abrasive effects of dentifrice. From the sensory feedback experiment it became clear that a significantly greater number of abrasions occurred when the test subjects would brush their own teeth than when they would have their teeth brushed by a dental hygienist. From the dentifrice experiment it became clear that the use of dentifrice has no significant effect on the occurrence of gingival lesions.