How to cite this article:Hartshorne J. A probe into implant dentistry researchPast, present and future. Open J Implant Dent. 2013;1 (1) Research aims and valuesThe ultimate purpose of research is to generate and make available accurate and reliable data that will illuminate and add value to evidence-based knowledge, with the aim of improving patient care, health and quality of life.In scientific research this goal is achieved through seven key research processes:• observing interventions and their outcomes and asking questions as to why they are happening • describing who, what, why, when and where to get insight into or find answers to specific interventions or treatment modalities and outcomes in a population • predicting the prognosis, survival or outcome of therapies or interventions • determining the underlying causes and relationships between different biological processes that leading to the observed events, conditions or outcomes of interest • finding possible explanations to why and how certain events or outcomes are happening • debating the significance of the research or identifying gaps, which may direct research into new areas of interest • synthesising and critically appraising a collective body of evidence on a specific research question to present evidence-based data that can facilitate clinical guidelines and recommendations.These endeavours culminate in the scholarly activity of publishing research findings in peerreviewed journals.The value of research lies in its clinical and economic benefits to the individual and collective community. Research also has a scholarly benefit in that it contributes to developing science, technology and education and thus increasing the standing of the profession. However, research is meaningless if the results are not valid (i.e. inaccurate or unreliable), have no relevance to patients in real-world clinical situations, and are not easily accessible to the end users, namely clinicians, educators and researchers.

How to cite this article:Van Zyl A, Hartshorne J, Carrasco-Labra A. Is chlorhexidine mouth rinse, used as a mono-therapy or adjunct with oral hygiene, effective at reducing plaque growth and gingival inflammation? Open J Implant Dent. 2013;1 (1) This study describes a systematic review of the best available evidence on the effectiveness of a chlorhexidine mouth rinse as a mono-therapy or as an adjunct to mechanical oral hygiene against plaque growth and gingival inflammation. Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane Central register of Controlled Trials were searched up to April 2011. Randomised controlled clinical trials that compared chlorhexidine to placebo or controlled mouth rinses or regular oral hygiene for a minimum duration of at least four weeks amongst gingivitis patients (≥ 18 years of age) were included. A total of 30 publications fulfilled the selection criteria. Clinical parameters measured at baseline and end of trial were plaque, gingival inflammation, bleeding and staining. Chlorhexidine reduced plaque by 33% and gingivitis by 26% compared to a placebo or a control mouth rinse. The investigators concluded that when used together with oral hygiene, chlorhexidine mouth rinses provide significant reductions in plaque and gingivitis scores in gingivitis patients, but a significant increase in staining compared to placebo or control mouth rinses. Focus articleVan Strydonck DAC, Slot DE, Van der Velden U, Van der Weijden F. Effect of a chlorhexidine mouth rinse on plaque, gingival inflammation and staining in gingivitis patients: a systematic review.

Background Some reports have shown the varying quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs), but this aspect has not been explored in the field of dentistry. With a growing number of guidelines in dentistry being published every year, and an increase in dentist's interest to inform their practice with such documents, it is relevant to learn whether their development process has been appropriate. Objectives To assess the rigour of development of evidencebased CPG's in dentistry. Methods We searched Pubmed, EMBASE, and the National Guideline Clearinghouse among others. We included all evidence-based CPGs with explicit clinical recommendations, published since 2004 in English. Two independent evaluators assessed the guidelines using the "Rigour of development" domain of AGREE II. Results A total of 73 CPGs were assessed. The mean score of the rigour of development domain across all guidelines was 34.54% (SD=19.18%). The items that scored the lowest were the description of a procedure for updating the guideline and the strengths and limitations of the evidence; whereas the items best rated were the explicit link between the evidence supporting the recommendations and the pondering of benefits, harms and risk for formulating the recommendations. Discussion CPGs aim to support clinical decision-making, and thus they can impact the quality of health-care. Thus, the rigour in their development is a relevant aspect to consider. There is a lot of room for improvement in this regard in CPGs in dentistry. Implications for Guideline Developers Guideline developers in dentistry should enhance the methodology when creating new guidelines or updating existing ones.

The investigators tested the null hypothesis that there would be no differences between the different bone harvesting techniques with regard to cell viability, cell activity and osteogenic potential of grafted cells. Bone grafts were harvested from the mandibles of 12 miniature pigs using four different harvesting techniques: bone milling, bone scraping, bone drilling (bone slurry) and piezosurgery. Cell viability was determined according to an immunoassay of released signalling molecules and gene expression that affect bone formation and resorption. The osteogenic activity of conditioned graft-sampled media was assessed in a bioassay using isolated bone cells. Cells in autogenous bone grafts obtained by using a bone mill and a bone scraper showed a higher viability and a stronger osteogenic potential than those from piezosurgery and bone drilling (slurry). This study contributed towards the understanding of the impact of harvesting techniques on the viability and osteogenic behaviour of grafted cells.

How to cite this article:This article describes a double-blinded, placebo-controlled randomised clinical trial that involved 30 eligible subjects experiencing generalised aggressive periodontitis. Subjects were randomly assigned to either the test group (scaling and root planning + metronidazole [400 mg]) and amoxicillin [500 mg]) or the control group (scaling and root planning without the adjunctive antibiotics combination). Both antibiotics and placebos were administered three times per day for 14 days. Participants were examined at baseline, and again six months and one year after therapy. Both therapies led to a statistically significant improvement in all clinical parameters as measured after one year. However, subjects who received the metronidazole-amoxicillin combination showed the greatest reduction in mean probing depth, an improved clinical attachment level and a lower mean number of residual sites after one year. The investigators concluded that the non-surgical treatment of generalised aggressive periodontitis was markedly improved by the adjunctive use of metronidazole and amoxicillin up to one year after treatment. Focus article