Cited by 15Oral microbiology and periodontitis researchDental Health and Care UtilizationOral Health Pathology and Treatment

Multimodality imaging of the effects of a novel dentifrice on oral biofilm: IMAGING EFFECTS OF A NOVEL DENTIFRICE ON BIOFILM

Open access
Ajdaharian, Janet, Dadkhah, Mohammad, Sabokpey, Sara, Biren-Fetz, John, Chung, Na Eun, Wink, Cherie, Wilder-Smith, Petra·2014·Lasers in Surgery and Medicine

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Oral biofilm formation and progression on the surface of the tooth can lead to advanced oral disease such as gingivitis. The purpose of this randomized, controlled, double-blinded study was to evaluate the effects of a novel dental gel on oral plaque biofilm using multimodal imaging techniques. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty-five subjects with moderate gingival inflammation (Löe and Silness Gingival Index ≥2) and pocket depths <4 were randomly assigned to brush twice daily for 21 days with the test or the control dental gel. In vivo multimodality in situ imaging was performed over a 3-week period using in vivo Optical Coherence Tomography (OCT) and Non-Linear Optical microscopy (NLOM). Plaque levels, gingival inflammation and gingival bleeding were also charted on days 0, 7, 14, and 21 using standard clinical indices. RESULTS: After 3 weeks, OCT and NLOM images showed a macroscopic break-up of the plaque layer and smaller, fragmented residual deposits in the test group with no apparent changes in the pellicle. Biofilm was also reduced in the control group, but to a lesser degree with regard to thickness, continuity and surface area. Paralleling these imaging results, clinical indices were significantly improved in both groups (P < 0.05) and significantly lower in the test group (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Both dental gels reduced oral biofilm with the test gel showing greater efficacy (P < 0.05) as determined by clinical and imaging parameters.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/lsm.22265

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • All previous clinical studies in gingivitis patients demonstrated that the test dental gel is safe and effective for plaque removal and improving gingival health.

    “All previous clinical studies conducted in gingivitis patients have demonstrated that the test dental gel is a safe and effective tool for plaque removal and improving gingival health.19–21,31”

    From Evaluating efficacy of a novel dentifrice in reducing probing depths in Stage I and II periodontitis maintenance patients: A randomized, double-blind, positive controlled clinical trial (2021) · cites this paper as [20]

    The Clinical Data and Conclusion report that, in this three-week study of participants with gingival inflammation, the test gel reduced plaque and improved gingival health. The paper does not establish that all previous clinical studies found these effects, and the Clinical Protocol does not report a safety assessment; preservation of the enamel pellicle alone does not establish that the gel is safe. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Prior investigations of 2.6% EDTA dentifrice lacked fluoride in the formulation.

    “These previous investigations of 2.6% EDTA containing dentifrice lacked the inclusion of fluoride in the formulation.”

    From Better living through chemistry? A randomized, double-blind controlled study evaluating the efficacy of plaque control and gingival health impacts of a novel stannous fluoride-containing gel (2023) · cites this paper as [23]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) identifies the studied dental gel as containing 2.6% activated edathamil, and the Clinical Protocol identifies it as the test dentifrice. Our copy does not state that fluoride was absent from its formulation; naming edathamil and MSM does not establish a complete ingredient list. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Previous studies showed that a 2.6% EDTA dental gel reduces plaque, gingival inflammation, and probing depths with minimal side effects.

    “Previous studies have demonstrated the efficacy of a dental gel with 2.6% ethylenediamine tetra-acetic acid (EDTA) as an antitartar agent in reducing oral plaque deposit, gingival inflammation, and probing depths with minimal patient-reported side effects or impact upon tooth surface microarchitecture and microhardness.22–27”

    From Better living through chemistry? A randomized, double-blind controlled study evaluating the efficacy of plaque control and gingival health impacts of a novel stannous fluoride-containing gel (2023) · cites this paper as [23]

    The Introduction identifies the test gel as a 2.6% activated-edathamil formulation, and Clinical Data reports reduced plaque and gingival indices after 21 days. The Clinical Protocol says probing depth was measured, but the reported results do not show a reduction; the paper also does not report patient-reported side effects, tooth microhardness, or an antitartar outcome. Imaging showed an unaltered pellicle, which is narrower than a claim about tooth-surface microarchitecture. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The comparative efficacy of a similar dentifrice formulation without stannous fluoride in plaque and gingival inflammatory reduction is consistent across studies.

    “While only one of these reports evaluates a formulation that includes stannous fluoride, 26 the comparative efficacy of a similar dentifrice formulation without stannous fluoride in plaque and gingival inflammatory reduction is consistent across studies. 20-26”

    From A randomized double-blind clinical trial evaluating comparative plaque and gingival health associated with commercially available stannous fluoride-containing dentifrices as compared to a sodium fluoride control dentifrice (2023) · cites this paper as [21]

    The Clinical Data section reports significantly lower plaque, gingival and bleeding indices for the test gel than for the control gel after 21 days, supporting this study’s contribution to the claimed comparative efficacy. The Introduction identifies activated edathamil and MSM in the test formulation, but our copy does not explicitly establish that it contains no stannous fluoride. This single study also cannot establish consistency across the other cited studies. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Previous studies have demonstrated the efficacy of a new dental gel with EDTA in reducing oral plaque deposits, gingival inflammation, and probing depths with minimal patient-reported side effects or impact upon tooth surface microarchitecture and microhardness.

    “previous studies have demonstrated the efficacy of a new dental gel with EDTA, in reducing oral plaque deposits, gingival inflammation, and probing depths with minimal patient-reported side effects or impact upon tooth surface microarchitecture and microhardness. 20-26”

    From A randomized double-blind clinical trial evaluating comparative plaque and gingival health associated with commercially available stannous fluoride-containing dentifrices as compared to a sodium fluoride control dentifrice (2023) · cites this paper as [21]

    Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Sanz M, Serrano J, Iniesta M, Santa Cruz I, Herrera D, van Loveren C. Toothpastes. Monogr Oral Sci Basel Karger. 2013; 23:27-44.
  2. Löe H, Silness J. Periodontal disease in pregnancy. Acta Odontologica Scandinavica. 1963; 21:533-551. [PubMed: 14121956]
  3. Zhang M, Wong IG, Gin JB, Ansari NH. Assessment of methylsulfonylmethane as a permeability enhancer for regionalEDTAchelation therapy. Drug Delivery. 2009; 16(5):243-248. [PubMed: 19538004]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ajdaharian, J., Dadkhah, M., Sabokpey, S., Biren-Fetz, J., Chung, N. E., Wink, C., & Wilder-Smith, P.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Irvine (US)
  • Beckman Laser Institute; University of California; Irvine California 92612
Corresponding author
Wilder-Smith, Petra
Venue
Lasers in Surgery and Medicine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-06-10
Volume
46
Issue
7
Pages
546-552
ISSN
0196-8092 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2103487358
Cited by
15
References
36
Citations by year
2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 1
FWCI
2.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Lasers in Surgery and Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (P41EB015890, 1R21DA031571-01)
  • Livionex Inc. (R03-EB014852)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Periodontics › Oral microbiology and periodontitis research
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Periodontics › Dental Health and Care Utilization
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Periodontics › Oral Health Pathology and Treatment
Keywords
dental plaque, toothpaste, dental gel, gingivitis, optical coherence tomography, nonlinear optical microscopy, in situ imaging, pellicle, plaque reduction
MeSH terms
Adult, Dentifrices, Double-Blind Method, Female, Gels, Gingivitis, Humans, Male, Microscopy, Prospective Studies, Biofilms, Tomography, Optical Coherence, Young Adult, Multimodal Imaging

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review