Milleman Jl

Effectiveness of a calcium sodium phosphosilicate containing prophylaxis paste in reducing dentine hypersensitivity immediately and 4 weeks after a single application: a double‐blind randomized controlled trial

Aims The aim of this single-site, randomized, controlled, double-blind, 3-arm parallel study was to determine the effectiveness of a prophylaxis paste containing 15% calcium sodium phosphosilicate (CSPS; NovaMin®) with and without fluoride in reducing dentine hypersensitivity immediately after a single application and 28 days following dental scaling and root planing. Materials & Methods Overall, 151 subjects were enrolled in this study. All subjects received a scaling and root planing procedure followed by a final prophylaxis step using one of three different prophylaxis pastes: Test-A (15% NovaMin® and NaF), Test-B (15% NovaMin®) and a control. Dentine hypersensitivity was assessed by tactile stimulus (Yeaple Probe®) and by air blast (Schiff scale) at baseline, immediately after and 28 days after a prophylaxis procedure. One hundred and forty-nine subjects completed the study. Results Subjects having received the test prophylaxis pastes showed statistically lower (anova, p < 0.05) dentine hypersensitivity compared with the control group immediately after the prophylaxis procedure (Yeaple Probe®: Test-A = 20.9 ± 12.6, Test-B = 22.7 ± 12.9, Control=11.2 ± 3.1; Schiff score: Test-A = 1.1 ± 0.6, Test-B = 1.1 ± 0.6, Control = 2.0 ± 0.7) and after 28 days (Yeaple probe: Test-A = 21.5 ± 11.9, Test-B = 20.6 ± 11.3, Control = 11.8 ± 6.0; Schiff score: Test-A = 1.0 ± 0.6, Test-B = 1.0 ± 0.6, Control = 2.0 ± 0.7). Conclusions In conclusion, the single application of both fluoridated and non-fluoridated prophylaxis pastes containing 15% CSPS (NovaMin®) provided a significant reduction of dentine hypersensitivity up to at least 28 days.

Randomized Controlled Clinical Study to Determine the Oral and Dermal Tolerability of an Experimental Denture Wipe

Abstract Purpose To evaluate oral and dermal tolerance following use and user acceptability of an experimental denture‐cleansing wipe. An exploratory objective was to develop a method to assess denture wipe effectiveness in removing debris from denture surfaces. Materials and Methods This was a single‐center, randomized, controlled, parallel‐group, examiner‐blind study in participants with ≥1 full/partial denture. Participants were randomized to clean their dentures with the denture wipe (n = 76) or water (n = 76) up to 4 times per day for 14 days. Tolerability was assessed by treatment‐emergent adverse events (TEAEs), oral soft tissue examination, and lead hand dermatological assessment. Acceptability was assessed by questionnaire. The feasibility of a methodology to assess the efficacy of the wipe at removing food particles was also evaluated through determination of the mass of chewed peanut particles that the wipe removed after a single use (n = 31). Results The proportion of participants experiencing oral TEAEs by day 14 was 0.039% with the denture wipe (lip injury [n = 1], mouth injury [n = 2]) and 0.013% with the water rinse (coated tongue [n = 1]). There were no dermal TEAEs and no TEAE‐related study withdrawals. Skin irritation scores with the denture wipe remained unchanged from baseline. Comparing before vs. after cleaning with the denture wipe, a higher proportion of participants rated their dentures as feeling extremely/very fresh (28.9% pre‐/85.5% post‐cleaning), feeling extremely/very clean (34.2%/86.8%) and looking extremely/very clean (43.5%/85.5%). More denture‐wipe group participants than water‐rinse group participants were extremely/very satisfied with the amount of debris removed from their dentures (88.1% vs 72.4%). The methodology used to assess the weight of peanut particles captured from the wipes/dentures appeared to be a feasible investigation technique. Conclusions The denture wipe was generally well‐tolerated and had good user acceptability. The methodology for assessing the mass of peanut particles removed by denture wipes was successful.

Potassium oxalate oral rinses for long-term relief from dentinal hypersensitivity: Three randomised controlled studies

OBJECTIVES To evaluate effectiveness of oral rinses containing dipotassium oxalate monohydrate (KOX) in relieving dentinal hypersensitivity (DH) after 8 w use adjunctive to brushing. METHODS Three 8-week, randomised, controlled, double-blind, parallel-group, single-centre studies were conducted in adults with DH. In each study, participants were randomised to one of two experimental rinses or a placebo in a matrix design, such that each experimental rinse was evaluated in two studies. Rinses A (pH 4.5) and B (pH 7.0) contained 1.5% KOX and were fluoride-free; Rinse C (pH 4.5) contained 2.0% KOX and 45 ppm fluoride as NaF; the placebo rinse (pH 4.5) did not contain KOX or fluoride. Participants brushed with a fluoride dentifrice for 1 min, briefly rinsed with water, then rinsed with their assigned oral rinse for 1 min twice daily for 8 w. DH was assessed at baseline and following 4 and 8 w use by response to an evaporative (air) stimulus (evaluated by Schiff sensitivity score and a 10-point visual rating scale) and a tactile stimulus (Yeaple probe). RESULTS All rinses in each study were associated with statistically significant improvements from baseline in measures of DH after 4 and 8 w treatment. However, between-treatment comparisons were inconsistent across the studies, with only Study 3 demonstrating a significant difference between the experimental (Rinses B and C) and placebo rinses. A number of treatment-related adverse events (all mild) were reported. CONCLUSIONS Rinses containing 1.5-2.0% KOX did not consistently demonstrate a benefit over placebo in relieving DH after 8 w use. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE While favourable results were found in one of the investigations, this suite of studies shows that the possibility of inconsistent results exists even with the best designed and executed trials.

A randomized, crossover trial to evaluate the effect of two mouthrinses on plaque regrowth in the absence of brushing.

This study assessed the effects on plaque in the absence of brushing of two twice-daily mouthrinses, one with an enzymatic-based formulation (Biotène) and one with an antimicrobial chlorhexidine-based formulation (Peridex), and sterile water. Plaque levels were assessed in 23 participants using a 4-day, nonbrushing plaque regrowth model after twice-daily rinsing with sterile water (negative control), the enzyme-based mouthrinse, or the chlorhexidine-based mouthrinse (positive control). Peridex showed significantly greater prevention of plaque regrowth when compared with water and the enzyme-based Biotène mouthrinse. After 4 days, the enzyme-based mouthrinse was associated with a small but nonsignificant reduction in plaque regrowth compared with water. This study confirmed that Peridex is effective at prevention of plaque regrowth. Twice-daily rinsing with a Biotène formula that contained enzymes showed a small but nonsignificant trend toward prevention of plaque regrowth versus rinsing with water.