Objectives The aim of the current clinical trial was to evaluate if the oral supplementation of melatonin after nonsurgical periodontal therapy (NSPT) determined a better periodontal healing than NSPT alone, in patients affected by untreated severe periodontitis. Background Melatonin's anti‐inflammatory, antioxidant and immunomodulatory capacities, together with its pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles are key characteristics that justify the therapeutic use for the treatment of periodontitis. Methods This is a randomized, triple‐blind, placebo‐controlled study. Twenty patients were blindly randomized either to melatonin or placebo group. The melatonin group received NSPT and melatonin capsules 1 mg per day for 1 month, while the placebo, NSPT, and placebo capsules for 1 month. The patients were evaluated at baseline and 6 months after. Mean change from baseline probing depth (PD) was the primary outcome; site of probing was used as unit of analysis; FMBS (%) and FMPS (%) were also calculated. Mann‐Whitney test was used to evaluate statistical significance (α = 0.05). Results Melatonin was well tolerated by all patients. Both treatments were effective in reducing PD, but no statistical difference was found when comparing posttreatment PD (probing all sites), P = .62. When considering the primary outcome, melatonin administration resulted in greater mean PD change at 6 months if compared to control group: for 4‐5 mm sites 1.86 (0.81) vs 1.04 (0.69), P = .00001 and for sites >5 mm 3.33 (1.43) vs 2.11 (0.96), P = .00012. No difference was found for FMBS and FMPS. Conclusion Current study, within its limitations, concluded that oral administration of melatonin (1 mg per day for 30 days) after one‐stage full mouth NSPT determined a greater change from baseline PD if compared to NSPT alone, in untreated stage III periodontitis. This could provide a non‐pharmacological support to improve periodontal healing of periodontal sites after NSPT.

OBJECTIVES:Force platforms are widely used to evaluate the relationship between posture and dental occlusion. This study evaluated whether force platforms are able to detect eventual postural modifications resulting from dental occlusion.METHOD:A total of 44 healthy volunteers who were given no information on the aim of the study underwent six postural stabilometric exams under different mandibular and visual conditions. Four parameters were considered: sway area, sway velocity, X axis displacement of the center of the foot pressure and Y axis displacement of the center of the foot pressure.RESULTS:An analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed the relative influence of each factor; specifically, the ocular afference significantly influenced the sway area and sway velocity parameters, and the mandibular position had only a weak influence on the sway area parameter.CONCLUSIONS:Vision was shown to influence body posture, and a weak correlation was observed between mandibular position and body posture in healthy subjects. However, the force platform is most likely not able to clearly detect this relationship. Gnathologists must use caution when using force platform analysis to modify a therapeutic plan. The sway area seems to be the most sensitive parameter for evaluating the effect of occlusion on body posture.

A CT examination should routinely be performed before any surgical approach to the interforaminal region.