| Literature DB >> 28265291 |
Karolina Wiatrak1, Tadeusz Morawiec1, Rafał Rój2, Anna Mertas3, Agnieszka Machorowska-Pieniążek4, Patryk Kownacki1, Marta Tanasiewicz5, Małgorzata Skucha-Nowak5, Stefan Baron6, Tomasz Piekarz1, Maciej Wrzoł1, Mateusz Bogacz1, Jacek Kasperski2, Iwona Niedzielska7.
Abstract
This study was carried out to investigate the influence of a propolis and tee tree oil-containing hygienic agent on selected oral health parameters, oral microflora, and the condition of periodontal health. Thirty-seven patients who underwent oral rehabilitation with a removable acrylic denture were selected and randomly assigned into two groups: study group (A) which received a newly formulated propolis and tee tree oil-containing toothpaste or a control group (C) without an active ingredient. API, S-OHI, and mSBI were assessed in three subsequent stages. During each examination swabs were employed for microbiological inoculation: in the study group after 4 weeks use of the active toothpaste showed a decrease in the number of isolated microorganisms. In the control group, after 4 weeks use of the toothpaste without active ingredients resulted in increase in the number of the isolated microorganisms. Improvements in hygiene and the condition of periodontium were observed in patients using active toothpastes. In the study group the oral flora diversity was reduced by the decrease in the number of cultured microorganism species, while in the control group an increase in the number of cultured microorganisms and their species was observed.Entities:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28265291 PMCID: PMC5317110 DOI: 10.1155/2017/4034179
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
API ranges: assessment for study and control groups.
| Oral hygiene assessment (interproximal spaces) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The assessment criteria | T1 | T2 | T3 | Friedman's ANOVA test ( | Wilcoxon signed-rank test | |
| Study group (A) | Optimal | 11% | 39% | 56% |
| (1) : (2) = 0.000438 |
| Quite good | 15% | 28% | 44% | |||
| Average | 53% | 33% | 0% | |||
| Bad | 21% | 0% | 0% | |||
|
| ||||||
| Control group (C) | Optimal | 17% | 21% | 42% |
| (1) : (2) = 0.231060 |
| Quite good | 11% | 37% | 37% | |||
| Average | 72% | 42% | 21% | |||
| Bad | 0% | 0% | 0% | |||
|
| ||||||
| Mann–Whitney “ | 0.784483 | 0.046554 | 0.001032 | — | — | |
T1 (1): preliminary examination before hygiene procedure; T2 (2): examination after 7 days; T3 (3): 28 days after the initial examination.
OHI ranges: assessment for study and control groups.
| Oral hygiene assessment (interproximal spaces) | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 | Mean ± standard deviation | T2 | Mean ± standard deviation |
| T3 | Mean ± standard deviation |
| ||||
| Study group (A) | 0–0.5 | 55.5% | 0.41 ± 0.25 | 0–0.5 | 66.6% | 0.33 ± 0.23 | 0.013221 | 0–0.5 | 88.8% | 0.20 ± 0.17 | 0.000468 |
| 0.6–1 | 44.5% | 0.6–1 | 34.4% | 0.6–1 | 11.1% | ||||||
| 1.1–2 | 0% | 1.1–2 | 0% | 1.1–2 | 0% | ||||||
| 2.1–3 | 0% | 2.1–3 | 0% | 2.1–3 | 0% | ||||||
|
| |||||||||||
| Control group (C) | 0–0.5 | 58% | 0.64 ± 0.50 | 0–0.5 | 63% | 0.58 ± 0.30 | 0.352356 | 0–0.5 | 68.4% | 0.57 ± 0.23 | 0.382331 |
| 0.6–1 | 21% | 0.6–1 | 21% | 0.6–1 | 31.6% | ||||||
| 1.1–2 | 16% | 1.1–2 | 16% | 1.1–2 | 0% | ||||||
| 2.1–3 | 5% | 0.006370 | 0.000002 | 2.1–3 | 0% | ||||||
|
| |||||||||||
| Study (A) versus control (C) ( | 0.097301 | 0,006370 | 0,000002 | ||||||||
T1 (1): preliminary examination before hygiene procedure; T2 (2): examination after 7 days; T3 (3): 28 days after the initial examination.
Figure 1ANOVA Estimated Marginal Means for denture plaque index study and control group.
SBI ranges: assessment for study and control groups.
| Sulcus Bleeding Index assessment | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The assessment criteria | T1 | T2 | T3 | Friedman's ANOVA test ( | Wilcoxon signed-rank test | |
| Study group (A) | Normal gingiva | 50% | 72.5% | 100% |
| (1) : (2): 0.003283 |
| Bleeding on probing | 50% | 27.5% | 0% | |||
|
| ||||||
| Control group (C) | Normal gingiva | 53% | 65.5% | 65.5% |
| (1) : (2): 0.726768 |
| Bleeding on probing | 47% | 34.5% | 34.5% | |||
|
| ||||||
| Mann–Whitney | 0.346197 | 0.012713 | 0.000001 | — | ||
T1 (1): preliminary examination before hygiene procedure; T2 (2): examination after 7 days; T3 (3): 28 days after the initial examination.
The microorganisms species isolated from patients, who used toothpaste with EEP and TTO (study group, A) or without EEP and TTO (control group, C).
| Isolated microorganisms | Number of patients from study group (A) | Number of patients from control group (C) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Initial | After 7 days | After 28 days | Initial | After 7 days | After 28 days | |
| Gram(+) anaerobic bacteria | ||||||
| | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 3 |
| | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 7 | 7 |
| | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| | 4 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 2 | 5 |
| | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 |
| | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 |
| | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 1 |
| | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
|
| ||||||
| Gram(−) anaerobic bacteria | ||||||
| | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| | 3 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 5 |
| | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| | 2 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 |
|
| ||||||
| Gram(+) aerobic bacteria | ||||||
| | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| | 1 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| | 7 | 10 | 7 | 6 | 7 | 9 |
| | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| | 9 | 5 | 8 | 7 | 4 | 10 |
| | 4 | 5 | 2 | 5 | 7 | 3 |
|
| ||||||
| Gram(−) aerobic bacteria | ||||||
| | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 |
| | 15 | 18 | 16 | 18 | 16 | 19 |
| | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
| ||||||
| Fungi | ||||||
| | 8 | 8 | 6 | 5 | 9 | 9 |
|
| ||||||
| Number of microorganisms strains |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Altogether: |
|
| ||||
The changes of oral microflora from patients, who used toothpaste with EEP and TTO (study group, A) or without EEP and TTO (control group, C).
| Changes of microorganisms species after 28 days of study | Study group (A) | Control group (C) |
|---|---|---|
| Eliminated species | Gram(+) anaerobic bacteria | |
|
|
| |
| Gram(−) anaerobic bacteria | ||
|
|
| |
| Gram(+) aerobic bacteria | ||
|
|
| |
| Gram(−) aerobic bacteria | ||
|
| — | |
|
| ||
| Declined species | Gram(+) anaerobic bacteria | |
|
|
| |
| Gram(−) anaerobic bacteria | ||
|
|
| |
| Gram(+) aerobic bacteria | ||
|
|
| |
| Fungi | ||
|
| — | |
|
| ||
| Gained species | Gram(+) anaerobic bacteria | |
|
|
| |
| Gram(−) anaerobic bacteria | ||
|
|
| |
| Gram(+) aerobic bacteria | ||
|
|
| |
| Gram(−) aerobic bacteria | ||
|
|
| |
|
| ||
| Increased species | Gram(+) anaerobic bacteria | |
|
|
| |
| Gram(−) anaerobic bacteria | ||
|
|
| |
| Gram(+) aerobic bacteria | ||
|
|
| |
| Gram(−) aerobic bacteria | ||
|
|
| |
| Fungi | ||
| — |
| |