This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

Aim: The aim of the study was to evaluate if pH indicator strips could be used for measurements of plaque pH acidogenicity in situ. Method: Interproximal plaque pH was measured before and up to 60 min after a 10% sucrose rinse in 30 healthy volunteers using pH indicator strips and the microtouch method in parallel. Results: It was found that the ‘strip method’ could determine changes in plaque pH to the same extent as the microtouch method (correlation coefficient 0.99). Conclusion: Since the ‘strip method’ is inexpensive and easy to handle, it may be applicable for assessment of plaque acidogenicity in the clinic.

BackgroundUrease is an enzyme produced by plaque bacteria hydrolysing urea from saliva and gingival exudate into ammonia in order to regulate the pH in the dental biofilm. The aim of this study was to assess the urease activity among oral bacterial species by using the rapid urease test (RUT) in a micro-plate format and to examine whether this test could be used for measuring the urease activity in site-specific supragingival dental plaque samples ex vivo.MethodsThe RUT test is based on 2% urea in peptone broth solution and with phenol red at pH 6.0. Oral bacterial species were tested for their urease activity using 100 μl of RUT test solution in the well of a micro-plate to which a 1 μl amount of cells collected after growth on blood agar plates or in broth, were added. The color change was determined after 15, 30 min, and 1 and 2 h. The reaction was graded in a 4-graded scale (none, weak, medium, strong). Ex vivo evaluation of dental plaque urease activity was tested in supragingival 1 μl plaque samples collected from 4 interproximal sites of front teeth and molars in 18 adult volunteers. The color reaction was read after 1 h in room temperature and scored as in the in vitro test.ResultsThe strongest activity was registered for Staphylococcus epidermidis, Helicobacter pylori, Campylobacter ureolyticus and some strains of Haemophilus parainfluenzae, while known ureolytic species such as Streptococcus salivarius and Actinomyces naeslundii showed a weaker, variable and strain-dependent activity. Temperature had minor influence on the RUT reaction. The interproximal supragingival dental plaque between the lower central incisors (site 31/41) showed significantly higher score compared to between the upper central incisors (site 11/21), between the upper left first molar and second premolar (site 26/25) and between the lower right second premolar and molar (site 45/46).ConclusionThe rapid urease test (RUT) in a micro-plate format can be used as a simple and rapid method to test urease activity in bacterial strains in vitro and as a chair-side method for testing urease activity in site-specific supragingival plaque samples ex vivo.

Objective: To examine pH in the approximal dental biofilm after acid and alkali formation from sucrose and urea, after an adaptation period to these substances, in caries-free (CF) and caries-active (CA) individuals. Saliva flow and buffer capacity, and aciduric bacteria in saliva and plaque were also examined. Material and Methods: Twenty adolescents and young adults (15-21 years) with no caries (n = 10, D_{m + i}MFS = 0) or ≥1 new manifest lesions/year (n = 10, D_mMFS = 3.4 ± 1.8) participated. After plaque sampling, interproximal plaque pH was measured using the strip method before (baseline) and up to 30 min (final pH) after random distribution of a 1-min rinse with 10 ml of 10% sucrose or 0.25% urea. This procedure was repeated after a 1-week adaptation period of rinsing 5 times/day with 10 ml of the selected solution. After a 2-week washout period the second solution was similarly tested. Mutans streptococci, lactobacilli and pH 5.2-tolerant bacteria were analyzed by culturing. Results: In the CF group, acid adaptation resulted in lowering of baseline and final plaque pH values after a sugar challenge, and in increased numbers of bacteria growing at pH 5.2, which was increased also after alkali adaptation. In the CA group, the final pH was decreased after acid adaptation. No clear effects of alkali adaptation were seen in this group. Conclusion: One-week daily rinses with sucrose and urea had the most pronounced effect on the CF group, resulting in increased plaque acidogenicity from the sugar rinses and increased number of acid-tolerant plaque bacteria from both rinses.

Background: Body dysmorphic disorder (BDD) is a psychiatric disturbance with high incidence in aesthetic clinical settings. Early recognition may avoid unnecessary elective procedures with ethical and medicolegal consequences. Aims:To identify validated BDD screening tools and critically appraise current literature regarding its implementation and efficacy in aesthetic medicine and surgery scenarios, with the purpose of transposing the findings to the broad clinical settings in the field. Methods: Data was collected using advanced search from PubMed (MEDLINE). Having satisfied the search parameters, 12 studies referring BDD definition according to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorder (DSM-5) criteria and including a BDD screening tool in clinical aesthetic settings were selected. Results: While BDD screening enables the recognition of at-risk individuals, further work is required to uncover the best screening tool for general aesthetic clinical practice. Level III evidence favored BDD Questionnaire (BDDQ)/BDDQ-Dermatology Version (DV), and The Dysmorphic Concern Questionnaire (DCQ) among the limited available validated screening instruments to be used outside the psychiatric environment. Based on level II self-classification, one study selected BDDQ-Aesthetic Surgery (AS) version for rhinoplasty patients. The validation process of both BDDQ-AS and Cosmetic Procedure Screening Questionnaire (COPS) had limitations. For BDD screening potential in avoiding postoperative complications, the limited studies found evaluating the outcomes following aesthetic treatments using validated BDD screening measures showed a trend toward less satisfaction with aesthetic treatment outcome among positive screening population against non-BDD counterparts. Conclusion:Further research is necessary to establish more effective methods to identify BDD and evaluate the impact of positive findings on aesthetic intervention outcomes. Future studies may elucidate which BDD characteristics best predict a favorable outcome and provide high-quality evidence for standardized protocols in research and clinical practice.