Background: Gingivitis is a nonspecific inflammatory lesion in response to the accumulation of oral biofilm and is a necessary precursor to periodontitis.Enhanced oral hygiene practices are necessary to reverse gingivitis and a dentifrice that could provide significant clinical reductions in plaque accumulation and gingival inflammation would be desirable to treat gingivitis and potentially prevent progression to periodontitis. This clinical study aimed to investigate the effect of a novel stannous fluoride-containing dentifrice with 2.6% ethylenediamine tetra-acetic acid (EDTA) as an antitartar agent to reduce Plaque Index (PI) and Gingival Index over a 3-month study period. Methods: This double-blind, randomized controlled clinical study evaluated plaque, gingival inflammation, and sulcular bleeding in patients using either a novel dental gel containing 0.454% stannous fluoride and 2.6% EDTA or a dentifrice with 0.24% sodium fluoride. Sixty subjects participated over a 3-month period. Co-primary endpoints were improvements in PI and Modified Gingival Index (mGI) from baseline values. No professional cleaning was performed during the study period. Results: All subjects in the study demonstrated statistically significant improvements in all measures of oral hygiene over the 3-month study period. Subjects using the novel dental gel showed statistically significantly greater reductions in PI (ΔPI) [(−1.43 ± 0.34; −0.49 ± 0.13) (p < 0.00001)], mGI (ΔmGI) [(−1.11 ± 0.22; −0.16 ± 0.12) (p < 0.00001)], and modified sulcular bleeding index (ΔmSBI) [(−1.15 ± 0.18; −0.20 ± 0.07) (p < 0.00001)]. Conclusions:The novel dental gel demonstrated significant improvements in clinical parameters associated with gingivitis compared to a commercially available sodium fluoride dentifrice.

Oral non-neoplastic and neoplastic lesions have similar clinical manifestations, increasing the risk of inaccurate screening decisions that adversely affect oral cancer (OC) outcomes. Tobacco-use-related changes in the oral soft tissues may affect the accuracy of “smart” oral screening modalities. Because smoking is such a strong predictor of OC risk, it may overwhelm the impact of other variables on algorithm performance. The objective was to evaluate the screening accuracy in tobacco users vs. non-users of a previously developed prototype smartphone and machine-learning algorithm-based oral health screening modality. 318 subjects with healthy mucosa or oral lesions were allocated into either a “tobacco smoker” group or a “tobacco non-smoker” group. Next, intraoral autofluorescence (AFI) and polarized white light images (pWLI), risk factors as well as clinical signs and symptoms were recorded using the prototype screening platform. OC risk status as determined by the algorithm was compared with OC risk evaluation by an oral medicine specialist (gold standard). The screening platform achieved 80.0% sensitivity, 87.5% specificity, 83.67% agreement with specialist screening outcome in tobacco smokers, and 62.1% sensitivity, 82.9% specificity, 73.1% agreement with specialist screening outcome in non-smokers. Tobacco use should be carefully weighted as a variable in the architecture of any imaging-based screening algorithm for OC risk.

Late detection and specialist referral result in poor oral cancer outcomes globally. High-risk LRMU populations usually do not have access to oral medicine specialists, a specialty of dentistry, whose expertise includes the identification, treatment, and management of oral cancers. To overcome this access barrier, there is an urgent need for novel, low-cost tele-health approaches to expand specialist access to low-resource, remote and underserved individuals. The goal of this study was to compare the diagnostic accuracy of remote versus in-person specialist visits using a novel, low-cost telehealth platform consisting of a smartphone-based, remote intraoral camera and custom software application. A total of 189 subjects with suspicious oral lesions requiring biopsy (per the standard of care) were recruited and consented. Each subject was examined, and risk factors were recorded twice: once by an on-site specialist, and again by an offsite specialist. A novel, low-cost, smartphone-based intraoral camera paired with a custom software application were utilized to perform synchronous remote video/still imaging and risk factor assessment by the off-site specialist. Biopsies were performed at a later date following specialist recommendations. The study’s results indicated that on-site specialist diagnosis showed high sensitivity (94%) and moderate specificity (72%) when compared to histological diagnosis, which did not significantly differ from the accuracy of remote specialist telediagnosis (sensitivity: 95%; specificity: 84%). These preliminary findings suggest that remote specialist visits utilizing a novel, low-cost, smartphone-based telehealth tool may improve specialist access for low-resource, remote and underserved individuals with suspicious oral lesions.