| Literature DB >> 29137160 |
Tomasz Piekarz1, Anna Mertas2, Karolina Wiatrak3, Rafał Rój4, Patryk Kownacki5, Joanna Śmieszek-Wilczewska6, Ewelina Kopczyńska7, Maciej Wrzoł8, Maria Cisowska9, Ewelina Szliszka10, Zenon P Czuba11, Iwona Niedzielska12, Tadeusz Morawiec13.
Abstract
The study was based on the use of a toothpaste with antiphlogistic activity, containing Australian Melaleuca alternifolia oil (tea tree oil-TTO) and ethanolic extract of Polish propolis (EEP). Fifty-one patients with varying conditions of the gingiva were divided into two groups. The study group received the toothpaste with TTO and EEP, while the control group received the same toothpaste but without TTO and EEP. Approximal plaque index (API), simplified oral hygiene index (OHI-s) and modified sulcus bleeding index (mSBI) were assessed in three subsequent stages. During each examination, swabs were employed for microbiological inoculation. During the period of use of toothpastes with TTO and EEP, a significant reduction of the API was observed, as assessed upon the control visit after 7 days and after 28 days, compared to baseline. A statistically significant reduction of mSBI was observed after 7 and 28 days of using the toothpaste with TTO and EEP, as compared to the value upon the initial visit. Statistically significant differences in the OHI-s value were observed in the study group, which was using the active toothpaste. The use of a toothpaste containing TTO and EEP helps to maintain microbiome balance. The observed stabilisation of bacterial microflora confirms the beneficial activity of toothpaste containing EEP and TTO compared to the control group, where the lack of these substances contributed to the emergence of qualitative and quantitative changes in oral microbiome.Entities:
Keywords: oral hygiene; oral microbiome; propolis; tea tree oil
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 29137160 PMCID: PMC6150324 DOI: 10.3390/molecules22111957
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Molecules ISSN: 1420-3049 Impact factor: 4.411
Comparison of mean API values with Student’s t-test for dependent and independent samples in study and control groups.
| Oral Hygiene Assessment (Interproximal Spaces) API | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 | Mean ± Standard Deviation | T2 | Mean ± Standard Deviation | T3 | Mean ± Standard Deviation | ||||||
| Study group (AT preparation) | Optimal | 0% | 64.58 ± 22.38 | Optimal | 20% | 49.00 ± 25.32 | 0.006488 | Optimal | 16% | 39.39 ± 20.60 | 0.000155 |
| Quite good | 12% | Quite good | 20% | Quite good | 52% | ||||||
| Average | 48% | Average | 44% | Average | 24% | ||||||
| Bad | 40% | Bad | 16% | Bad | 8% | ||||||
| Control group (CT preparation) | Optimal | 27% | 50.72 ± 29.68 | Optimal | 35% | 47.56 ± 29.70 | 0.572221 | Optimal | 46% | 42.19 ± 28.76 | 0.181755 |
| Quite good | 19% | Quite good | 11% | Quite good | 12% | ||||||
| Average | 27% | Average | 31% | Average | 23% | ||||||
| Bad | 27% | Bad | 23% | Bad | 19% | ||||||
| 0.066497 | 0.852609 | 0.692097 | |||||||||
T1—first examination; T2—second examination after 7 days; T3—third examination after 28 days.
Figure 1Approximal plaque index (API) values in study and control groups.
Comparison of the mSBI values in study and control groups.
| Sulcus Bleeding Index Assessment (mSBI) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 | T2 | T3 | Friedman’s ANOVA Test ( | Wilcoxon Signed-Rank Test | ||||
| Study group (AT preparation) | Normal gingiva SBI <10% | 4% | Normal gingiva SBI <10% | 8% | Normal gingiva SBI <10% | 24% | T1:T2 = 0.017720 | |
| Bleeding on probing | 96% | Bleeding on probing | 92% | Bleeding on probing | 76% | |||
| Control group (CT preparation) | Normal gingiva SBI <10% | 4% | Normal gingiva SBI <10% | 4% | Normal gingiva SBI <10% | 8% | T1:T2 = 0.026810 | |
| Bleeding on probing | 96% | Bleeding on probing | 96% | Bleeding on probing | 92% | |||
| 0.417321 | 0.049853 | 0.000002 | - | -- | ||||
T1—first examination; T2—second examination after 7 days; T3—third examination after 28 days.
Figure 2Modified sulcus bleeding index (mSBI) values in study and control groups.
Comparison of the OHI-s values in study and control groups.
| Oral Hygiene Assessment (Interproximal Spaces) (OHI-s) | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 | Mean ± Standard Deviation | T2 | Mean ± Standard Deviation | T3 | Mean ± Standard Deviation | ||||||
| Study group (AT preparation) | 0–0.5 | 12% | 1.48 ± 0.70 | 0–0.5 | 48% | 0.66 ± 0.49 | 0.000001 | 0–0.5 | 96% | 0.12 ± 0.18 | 0.000001 |
| 0.6–1 | 16% | 0.6–1 | 20% | 0.6–1 | 4% | ||||||
| 1.1–2 | 44% | 1.1–2 | 32% | 1.1–2 | 0% | ||||||
| 2.1–3 | 28% | 2.1–3 | 0% | 2.1–3 | 0% | ||||||
| Control group (CT preparation) | 0–0.5 | 27% | 1.18 ± 0.61 | 0–0.5 | 30% | 1.09 ± 0.60 | 0.461274 | 0–0.5 | 38% | 0.99 ± 0.55 | 0.186593 |
| 0.6–1 | 8% | 0.6–1 | 16% | 0.6–1 | 8% | ||||||
| 1.1–2 | 57% | 1.1–2 | 46% | 1.1–2 | 54% | ||||||
| 2.1–3 | 8% | 2.1–3 | 8% | 2.1–3 | 0% | ||||||
| 0.101110 | 0.007670 | 0.000001 | |||||||||
T1—first examination; T2—second examination after 7 days; T3—third examination after 28 days.
Figure 3ANOVA Estimated Marginal Means for the simplified oral hygiene index (OHI-s).
Analysis of homogeneity of variance for OHI-s.
| Analysis of Variance (F) | Levene’s Test for Homogeneity of Variance | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2.79204 | 0.101110 | 0.15039 | 0.699845 | |
| 7.73369 | 0.007670 | 1.85717 | 0.179182 | |
| 56.25920 | 0.000001 | 64.33246 | 0.000001 |
Microorganisms found in the samples taken from mouth floor mucosa of patients from study and control groups.
| Microorganisms | Study Group (AT Preparation) | Control Group (CT Preparation) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 | T2 | T3 | Together | T1 | T2 | T3 | Together | |
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 2 | |||
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |||
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |||
| 17 | 15 | 15 | 9 | 12 | 16 | |||
| 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | |||
| 10 | 5 | 7 | 4 | 6 | 7 | |||
| 6 | 8 | 5 | 10 | 10 | 6 | |||
| 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | |||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |||
| 16 | 17 | 22 | 24 | 26 | 26 | |||
| 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 1 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 0 | |||
| 8 | 8 | 6 | 8 | 9 | 17 | |||
| 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 7 | |||
| 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |||
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |||
| 1 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 7 | 5 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 3 | |||
| 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 3 | |||
| 3 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 1 | |||
| 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 1 | |||
| 5 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 6 | 4 | |||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |||
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | |||
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 4 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 2 | 0 | |||
| 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2 | |||
| 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1 | |||
| 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |||
| 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | |||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 0 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |||
| 2 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 1 | |||
| 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | |||
| 3 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 3 | |||
| 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |||
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 2 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 3 | |||
| 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | |||
| 0 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | |||
| 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |||
| 3 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 2 | |||
| 111 | 98 | 96 | 95 | 110 | 116 | |||
Figure 4Distribution of isolated microorganisms in the study group.
Figure 5Distribution of isolated microorganisms in the control group.