Dataset Information

A single-centre investigator-blinded randomised parallel group clinical trial to investigate the effect of probiotic strains Streptococcus salivarius M18 and Lactobacillus acidophilus on gingival health of paediatric patients undergoing treatment with fixed orthodontic appliances: study protocol.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There is limited data on the beneficial effects of probiotics on the gingival health of patients undergoing treatment with fixed orthodontic appliances. This study aims to compare the effect of probiotic tablets combined with regular oral hygiene versus regular oral hygiene alone on gingival status in these patients. The effect of probiotic intake on plaque formation and salivary microbiome composition will be also assessed.

Methods and analysis

This is a 3 month single-centre, single blind (clinical and laboratory examiners), parallel group randomised controlled two arm superiority trial. Fifty paediatric patients attending the Postgraduate Orthodontic Clinic at the Hamdan Bin Mohammed College of Dental Medicine (HBMCDM), Mohammed Bin Rashid University of Medicine and Health Sciences (MBRU), Dubai, United Arab Emirates, who meet the eligibility criteria will be recruited. Block randomisation with 1:1 allocation and concealment of allocation will be carried out. The treatment group will receive probiotic tablets containing Streptococcus salivarius M18 and Lactobacillus acidophilus together with regular oral hygiene versus the control group on regular oral hygiene alone. Clinical examination and collection of saliva for microbiome assay will be carried out at baseline and end of study. Self-reporting by patients will be used to document acceptability and adverse effects. Statistically significant decrease in gingival bleeding on probing in the treatment group will be classified as primary outcome of treatment success. Statistically significant reduction in Plaque Index, Gingival Index and shift in the composition of the oral microbiome in favour of beneficial bacteria are secondary outcomes indicative of efficacy of probiotic intake.

Ethics and dissemination

Ethical approval for the study has been granted by the HBMCDM, MBRU, Institutional Review Board (Reference #: MBRU-IRB-2018-015). Study findings will be disseminated via publication in peer-reviewed journal.

Trial registration number

ISRCTN95085398.

SUBMITTER: Kaklamanos EG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6738688 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A single-centre investigator-blinded randomised parallel group clinical trial to investigate the effect of probiotic strains <i>Streptococcus salivarius</i> M18 and <i>Lactobacillus acidophilus</i> on gingival health of paediatric patients undergoing treatment with fixed orthodontic appliances: study protocol.

Kaklamanos Eleftherios G EG Nassar Rania R Kalfas Sotirios S Al Halabi Manal M Kowash Mawlood M Hannawi Haifa H Hussein Iyad I Salami Anas A Hassan Ammar A Senok Abiola C AC

BMJ open 20190908 9

<h4>Background</h4>There is limited data on the beneficial effects of probiotics on the gingival health of patients undergoing treatment with fixed orthodontic appliances. This study aims to compare the effect of probiotic tablets combined with regular oral hygiene versus regular oral hygiene alone on gingival status in these patients. The effect of probiotic intake on plaque formation and salivary microbiome composition will be also assessed.<h4>Methods and analysis</h4>This is a 3 month single ...[more]

PMID: 31501124

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPatients with fixed orthodontic appliances have higher plaque accumulation and gingival inflammation. Our aim was to compare the effectiveness of a light emitting diode (LED) toothbrush with a manual toothbrush in reducing dental plaque and gingival inflammation in orthodontic patients with fixed appliances, and to investigate the effect of the LED toothbrush on Streptococcus mutans (S. mutans) biofilm in vitro.MethodsTwenty-four orthodontic patients were recruited and randomly assigned into 2 groups: (1) started with manual and (2) started with LED toothbrushes. After a 28-day usage and 28-day wash-out period, the patients switched to the other intervention. The plaque and gingival indices were determined at baseline and 28 days after each intervention. The patients' compliance and satisfaction scores were collected using questionnaires. For the in vitro experiments, S. mutans biofilm was divided into 5 groups (n = 6) with 15-, 30-, 60-, or 120-sec LED exposure, and without LED exposure as a control group.ResultsThere was no significant difference in the gingival index between the manual and LED toothbrush groups. The manual toothbrush was significantly more effective in reducing the plaque index in the proximal area on the bracket side (P = 0.031). However, no significant difference was found between the two groups in other areas around the brackets or on the non-bracket side. After LED exposure in vitro, the percentages of bacterial viability after LED exposure for 15-120 s were significantly lower compared with the control (P = 0.006).ConclusionClinically, the LED toothbrush was not more effective in reducing dental plaque or gingival inflammation than the manual toothbrush in orthodontic patients with fixed appliances. However, the blue light from the LED toothbrush significantly reduced the number of S. mutans in biofilm when it was exposed to the light for at least 15 s in vitro.Clinical trial registrationThai Clinical Trials Registry (TCTR20210510004). Registered 10/05/2021.

Project description:ObjectivesAdults with fixed orthodontic appliances are increasing nowadays. Compared with adolescents, adults present biological differences that might influence treatment duration. Therefore, the aim of the study was to compare duration of treatment with fixed appliances between adults and adolescents.Materials and methodsEight databases were searched up to September 2019 for randomized and non-randomized clinical studies comparing treatment duration with fixed appliances in adolescents and adult patients. After duplicate study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment with the Cochrane ROBINS-I tool, random effects meta-analyses of mean differences (MD) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were performed, followed by assessment of the quality of evidence with GRADE.ResultsA total of 11 unique studies (one prospective and 10 retrospective non-randomized) with 2969 adolescents and 1380 adult patients were finally included. Meta-analysis of 7 studies found no significant difference in the duration of comprehensive treatment with fixed appliances (MD = - 0.8 month; 95% CI = - 4.2 to 2.6 months; P = 0.65; I2 = 92%) between adults and adolescents. Similarly, both distalization of upper first molars with skeletal anchorage for class II correction and the retraction of canines into the premolar extraction spaces lasted similarly long among adults and adolescents. On the other hand, alignment of palatally displaced canines lasted considerably longer in adults compared to adolescents (1 study; MD = 3.8 months; 95% CI = 1.4 to 6.2 months; P = 0.002). The quality of evidence for the meta-analysis was low due to the inclusion of non-randomized studies with considerable risk of bias.ConclusionsWhile existing evidence does not indicate a difference in the overall duration of treatment with fixed appliances between adults and adolescents, the alignment of palatally displaced canines lasted significantly longer in adults. However, our confidence in these estimates is low due to the risk of bias in the included studies.Trial registrationPROSPERO: ( CRD42019148169 ).

Project description:The secretions of certain cytokines, chemokines and growth factors are triggered by orthodontic appliances, which often affect the remodelling of periodontal tissues. Critical cumulative forces are applied by various types of orthodontic appliances to the periodontium. The secretion of such molecules is probably responsible, through molecular and cellular communications, for the optimal resorption of hard tissues in the periodontal setting, which therefore enables the coordination of multiple movements of tooth. This study assessed and compared a wide range of cytokines, cellular marker analysis and defensins present in the saliva samples of human subjected to orthodontic treatment with two different treatment modalities, i.e., conventional lingual and labial fixed orthodontic appliances. A total 40 samples of saliva were obtained, of which 20 were treated with traditional lingual appliances and 20 were treated with labial fixed appliances. After 21 days of treatment, all salivary samples were collected from the subjects. In order to analyse a broad range of soluble cytokine levels in saliva by flow cytometry, a bead-based immunoassay was performed. Cell surface markers were analysed by flow cytometry. Protein levels of saliva for defensins were quantified by ELISA. Non-significant differences were observed in the cytokine levels in the saliva except for the significant effects for CCL2, IL-17A and IL-6. Cellular markers CD45 and CD326 showed high percentage in conventional lingual samples. Defensin levels were found to be lower in conventional lingual patients. Subjects with conventional lingual appliances had significantly higher salivary protein levels of IL-1β, CCL2, IL17A, and IL-6, higher CD45+ and CD326+ cells and lower defensin levels than subjects with fixed labial appliances. The current study provided a clear basis for the development of innovative methods to aid in the improvement of various procedural treatments and orthodontic equipment of next generation.

Project description:BackgroundOrthodontic patients wearing fixed appliances are susceptible to traumatic dental injuries during a wide range of sporting activities. This randomized clinical trial investigated wearability and preference of mouthguards during sporting activities in patients undergoing orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances.MethodsA prospective three-arm crossover randomized clinical trial conducted in the UK. Thirty patients in active orthodontic treatment with fixed appliances undertaking at least 120 minutes of contact sport per 6-8-week observation period were randomly assigned to one of six mouthguard allocation sequences consisting of three mouthguard types: (MG1) custom-made laboratory constructed, (MG2) mouth-formed OPRO® Gold Braces, and (MG3) pre-fabricated Shock Doctor® Single Brace. Patients completed a nine-outcome 100-mm visual analogue scale (VAS) questionnaire relating to mouthguard wearability during sport. Once feedback was completed, subjects were allocated the next mouthguard in the sequence. At study-end, subjects were asked to identify their preferred mouthguard.ResultsTwenty-four patients (median age = 13; inter-quartile range 12-14.5 years) completed n = 72 follow-up questionnaires with most playing rugby union or field hockey. Considering VAS score as a continuous variable, for comfort, stability, hardness, ability to breathe, ability to not cause nausea, and inclination to chew, MG2 performed better than MG3. For categorization of VAS score into low (less than 80 mm) or high (at least 80 mm) wearability, for comfort, stability, ability to not cause nausea, and inclination to chew, MG1 and MG2 also rated superior to MG3. Patients preferred MG1 overall.ConclusionsThis randomized clinical trial found that during contact sport patients in fixed appliances reported superior wearability for custom-made and mouth-formed mouthguards in comparison to pre-fabricated. Overall, patients preferred custom-made mouthguards.Clinical trials registrationClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04588831.