The periodontal probe is the gold standard tool for periodontal examinations, including probing depth measurements, but is limited by systematic and random errors. Here, we used photoacoustic ultrasound for high-spatial resolution imaging of probing depths. Specific contrast from dental pockets was achieved with food-grade cuttlefish ink as a contrast medium. Here, 39 porcine teeth (12 teeth with artificially deeper pockets) were treated with the contrast agent, and the probing depths were measured with novel photoacoustic imaging and a Williams periodontal probe. There were statistically significant differences between the 2 measurement approaches for distal, lingual, and buccal sites but not mesial. Bland-Altman analysis revealed that all bias values were < ±0.25 mm, and the coefficients of variation for 5 replicates were <11%. The photoacoustic imaging approach also offered 0.01-mm precision and could cover the entire pocket, as opposed to the probe-based approach, which is limited to only a few sites. This report is the first to use photoacoustic imaging for probing depth measurements with potential implications to the dental field, including tools for automated dental examinations or noninvasive examinations.

BackgroundObjective was to evaluate the in vivo effects of a novel dental gel (Livionex gelR) vs. a comparison dental gel on the surfaces of pre-eroded enamel chips.MethodsOn days 1–5, after toothbrushing with dentifrice, nine subjects each wore 8 enamel chips mounted on a palatal appliance for 4 h. Enamel blocks were pre-demineralized daily. After 2 day washout, subjects repeated the protocol using fresh chips and the second toothpaste on days 8–12. Samples were evaluated using electron microscopy.ResultsTen standardized enamel surface photomicrographs/sample (total 1440 images) were evaluated for signs of erosion visually and on a scale of 0–3 by 1 evaluator. No significant differences were found between the 2 groups (p>0.32, 95% C.I.). Minimal surface erosion on approx. 15% of sample area was visible in both groups.ConclusionThe enamel surface appeared similar after usage of a test or control dentifrice. Based on this study, the test formulation did not affect enamel surface recovery from an erosive challenge.Practical implicationsDentifrices can contribute to maintaining a healthy enamel surface. An all-natural dental gel formulation with novel anti-plaque mechanism achieved similar recovery from acid challenge to enamel as a control gel.

Background: Compliance to periodontal maintenance therapy (PMT) is essential for long-term periodontal health. Between PMT visits, patients must maintain good oral hygiene. A dentifrice with demonstrable clinical benefits for use between PMT visits would be highly desirable. The aim of this clinical study was to investigate the effect of a novel dental gel on probing depths (PD) and inflammation when used as a home care dentifrice in Stage I and II periodontitis patients.Methods: This double-blind clinical study randomized 65 subjects with Stage I and II periodontitis to the novel dental gel containing 2.6% EDTA, and a commercially available anti-gingivitis dentifrice with 0.454% stannous fluoride. Primary endpoint was PD at 6 months for those sites with baseline PD ≥ 4 mm and secondary endpoints included whole mouth mean scores of modified gingival index (MGI), modified sulcus bleeding index (mSBI) and plaque index (PI). No SRP was performed at baseline. Results: Subjects using the novel dentifrice showed significant PD reductions of 1.18 mm (from 4.27 mm at baseline to 3.09 mm at 6 months) compared to 0.93 mm (from 4.23 mm at baseline to 3.30 mm at 6 months) shown for those using the positive control dentifrice. Difference between treatments at 6 months was 0.21 mm with P-value = 0.0126. Significant improvements in MGI (P = 0.0000), mSBI (P = 0.0000), and PI (P = 0.0102) were also observed in 6 months. Conclusion:The novel dentifrice showed significant reductions in PD and gingival inflammation over 6 months solely as a home care dentifrice without baseline SRP in Stage I and II periodontitis maintenance patients.