Evaluation of Periodontal Risk Factors with Quantitative Light-Induced Fluorescence Based Fluorescent Plaque Index, in Comparison to Radiographic and Oral Health Habit Scoring: A Retrospective Case Study

The aim of this study was to evaluate periodontal risk factors with oral health habits and fluorescent plaque index (FPI) using quantitative light-induced fluorescence (QLF) images, and to evaluate their effect on the degree of radiographic bone loss (RBL). Selected were 276 patients over 19 years of age to complete the questionnaire for oral health habit and take QLF images, periapical and panoramic radiographs. Oral health habit score, age, and sex showed a statistically significant correlation with FPI. FPI showed a lower value as the oral health habit score increased and the age decreased. Moreover, females showed lower FPI values than did males. RBL showed a statistically significant positive correlation with age but did not show any correlation with oral health habit scores and sex. There was no correlation between FPI and RBL. The results of this study suggest that the clinical use of QLF allows plaque detection by non-invasive procedures and can aid in a more objective estimation for oral hygiene status.

Using FEM to Assess the Effect of Orthodontic Forces on Affected Periodontium

Orthodontic treatment in patients with no periodontal tissue breakdown vs. horizontal bone loss should be approached with caution even though it can bring significant benefits in terms of periodontal recovery and long-term success. We used the finite element method (FEM) to simulate various clinical scenarios regarding the periodontal involvement: healthy with no horizontal bone loss, moderate periodontal damage (33%) and severe horizontal bone loss (66%). Afterwards, forces of different magnitudes (0.25 N, 1 N, 3 N, and 5 N) were applied in order to observe the behavioral patterns. Through mathematical modeling, we recorded the maximum equivalent stresses (σ ech), the stresses on the direction of force application (σ c) and the displacements produced (f) in the whole tooth–periodontal ligament–alveolar bone complex with various degrees of periodontal damage. The magnitude of lingualization forces in the lower anterior teeth influences primarily the values of equivalent tension, then those of the tensions in the direction in which the force is applied, and lastly those of the displacement of the lower central incisor. However, in the case of the lower lateral incisor, it influences primarily the values of the tensions in the direction in which the force is applied, then those of equivalent tensions, and lastly those of displacement. Anatomical particularities should also be considered since they may contribute to increased periodontal risk in case of lingualization of the LLI compared to that of the LCI, with a potential emergence of the “wedge effect”. To minimize periodontal hazards, the orthodontic force applied on anterior teeth with affected periodontium should not exceed 1 N.

Tooth loss in complying and non-complying periodontitis patients with different periodontal risk levels during supportive periodontal care

Objectives To evaluate yearly tooth loss rate (TLR) in periodontitis patients with different periodontal risk levels who had complied or not complied with supportive periodontal care (SPC). Materials and methods Data from 168 periodontitis patients enrolled in a SPC program based on a 3-month suggested recall interval for at least 3.5 years were analyzed. For patients with a mean recall interval within 2–4 months (“compliers”) or > 4 months (“non-compliers”) with different PerioRisk levels (Trombelli et al. 2009), TLR (irrespective of the cause for tooth loss) was calculated. TLR values were considered in relation to meaningful TLR benchmarks from the literature for periodontitis patients either under SPC (0.15 teeth/year; positive benchmark) or irregularly complying with SPC (0.36 teeth/year; negative benchmark). Results In both compliers and non-compliers, TLR was significantly below or similar to the positive benchmark in PerioRisk level 3 (0.08 and 0.03 teeth/year, respectively) and PerioRisk level 4 (0.12 and 0.18 teeth/year, respectively). Although marked and clinically relevant in non-compliers, the difference between TLR of compliers (0.32 teeth/year) and non-compliers (0.52 teeth/year) with PerioRisk level 5 and the negative benchmark was not significant. Conclusion A SPC protocol based on a 3- to 6-month recall interval may effectively limit long-term tooth loss in periodontitis patients with PerioRisk levels 3 and 4. A fully complied 3-month SPC protocol seems ineffective when applied to PerioRisk level 5 patients. Clinical relevance PerioRisk seems to represent a valid tool to inform the SPC recall interval as well as the intensity of active treatment prior to SPC enrollment.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Oral Fluids Biomarker Profile to Determine the Current and Future Status of Periodontal and Peri-Implant Diseases

Severe periodontitis is ranked as the sixth most prevalent disease affecting humankind, with an estimated 740 million people affected worldwide. The diagnosis of periodontal diseases mainly relies upon assessment of conventional clinical parameters. However, these parameters reflect past, rather than current, clinical status or future disease progression and, likely, outcome of periodontal treatment. Specific and sensitive biomarkers for periodontal diseases have been examined widely to address these issues and some biomarkers have been translated as point-of-care (PoC) tests. The aim of this review was to provide an update on PoC tests for use in the diagnosis and management of periodontal diseases. Among the PoC tests developed so far, active matrix metalloproteinase-8 has shown promising results in terms of diagnostic and prognostic values. However, further studies are required to increase the sensitivity and specificity via combining more than one biomarker and merging these test kits with periodontal risk assessment tools. Furthermore, the validity of these test kits needs to be investigated by applying the results in further independent studies and the impact on these test kits’, together with the results of risk factors for periodontal diseases, such as diabetes and smoking, also needs to be examined.