Efficacy of a Barrier Gel for Reducing the Development of Plaque, Calculus, and Gingivitis in Cats

Abstract

This study was performed to assess the field efficacy of a professional and home-care barrier gel against the development of plaque, calculus, gingival bleeding, and gingivitis in client-owned cats over a 56-day period compared with negative controls. In a randomized, negative-controlled, outcome evaluator-blinded, client-owned animal clinical field study, 31 cats were evaluated to assess if the barrier gel dental product was effective in cats. Following an enrollment-qualification assessment and enrollment of each cat, all cats received a professional dental cleaning, including polishing and irrigation. Following cleaning, a post-cleaning assessment was performed by the evaluator. Then, using a pre-developed randomization schedule, cats were assigned to the treated or control group. The professional version of the barrier gel was applied to the treated group on day 0. The negative-control group patients did not receive any applications of the barrier gel following dental cleaning. Treated-group cats were brought back to the clinic for subsequent applications of the home-care version of the barrier gel, applied by a non-blinded trained assistant. The home-care version product applications began on day 14 and then were applied weekly (days, 21, 28, 35, 42, 49 and 56) through day 56. All cats enrolled in the study underwent full oral examinations and assessments by the blinded evaluator on or about their respective days 28 and 56. At these evaluations, the evaluator performed standardized assessments for plaque, calculus, gingivitis, and gingival bleeding. Numeric scores were assigned for each assessment using predetermined target teeth to ensure consistency. Using these assessment scores, statistical analyses were performed to determine the efficacies against plaque and calculus deposition; additionally, measurements of gingivitis and gingival bleeding were assessed. Change in plaque score from baseline, for all teeth assessed (all 4 canine teeth, and all 4 [corrected] premolar teeth), was significantly (P < 0.05) lower for treated cats than for control cats for both left side average and right side average on day 56. No statistical differences were seen for calculus, gingivitis, or gingival bleeding in this study. In cats with a history of developing plaque, application of the barrier gel dental product following dental cleaning reduced plaque deposition (P < 0.05) compared with control cats.

Dental Problems and Prophylactic Care in Cats—Knowledge and Perceptions among Swedish Cat Owners and Communication by Veterinary Care Staff

“…The requirements for maintaining a dental plaque-free status are similar in cats. In fact, daily tooth brushing was stated as the gold standard and most effective way to remove plaque and maintain gingiva health in cats [ 19 , 20 ]. Even so, we report that only 113 of 405 cat owners (28%) apply tooth brushing as a preventive measure in their cats, and with a low frequency of a daily or every second day routine ( n = 29 of 113).…”

“…In the present study, only 14% of the cat owners report that they apply dental chews as a preventive measure but a higher proportion of staff claim to recommend dental treats or other dental products (i.e., not dental food or dental toys). In cats with a history of developing plaque, weekly application of a barrier gel dental product may reduce plaque deposition [ 20 ], however, this routine did not affect gingivitis, gingival bleeding, or calculus. Dental chews, food and treats can be regarded as a valuable alternative to tooth brushing, albeit not as effective, as not all owners will be able to handle their cats and comply with tooth brushing recommendations [ 25 ].…”

Dietary omega‐3 fatty acids in the management of feline periodontal disease: What is the evidence?

“…In the second scenario, as it already affects the periodontal ligament and alveolar bone, the animal typically shows abnormalities compatible with loss of attachment, such as gingival recession, furcation expoure or periodontal pockets (Harvey, 2005;Niemiec, 2008). In both cases, plaque and/or calculus accumulation is observed in association with the aforementioned lesions (Bellows et al, 2012;Pérez-Salcedo et al, 2011).…”

“…For example, Ingham et al (2002) described that this dental homecare procedure was linked to a greater reduction in feline gingivitis, but warned that the reported results were lower than expected probably due to the difficulty of providing this dental care in this species, which continues to limit the degree of its effect. As an alternative, barrier gel dental products have been described with positive results in reducing plaque deposition, if properly applied (Bellows et al, 2012).…”

Dental calculus as a proxy for animal microbiomes

“…There is a multitude of literature devoted to these topics, but they fell into several categories that are worth mentioning briefly. A bulk of the literature is associated with common household pets such as dogs ( Carroll et al, 2020 ; Clarke et al, 2011 ; Quest, 2013 ) and cats ( Bellows et al, 2012 ; Scherl et al, 2019 ) and the effort to combat plaque buildup through treats and chew toy interventions. Other common wild and domesticated animals that have been studied for oral pathologies and calculus deposition include horses ( Earley and Rawlinson, 2013 ), camels ( Eze et al, 2012 ), pandas ( Jin et al, 2012 ), brown bears ( Wenker et al, 1998 ), dolphins ( Loch et al, 2011 ) and captive big cats ( Kapoor et al, 2016 ).…”