Skip header and navigation

2 records – page 1 of 1.

A 15-month evaluation of the effects of repeated subgingival minocycline in chronic adult periodontitis.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature201582
Source
J Periodontol. 1999 Jun;70(6):657-67
Publication Type
Article
Date
Jun-1999
Author
D. van Steenberghe
B. Rosling
P O Söder
R G Landry
U. van der Velden
M F Timmerman
E F McCarthy
G. Vandenhoven
C. Wouters
M. Wilson
J. Matthews
H N Newman
Author Affiliation
Catholic University, Leuven, Belgium.
Source
J Periodontol. 1999 Jun;70(6):657-67
Date
Jun-1999
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Adult
Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans - drug effects
Analysis of Variance
Anti-Bacterial Agents - administration & dosage
Campylobacter - drug effects
Canada
Chronic Disease
Colony Count, Microbial
Dental Plaque Index
Dental Scaling
Double-Blind Method
Eikenella corrodens - drug effects
Europe
Female
Fusobacterium nucleatum - drug effects
Humans
Longitudinal Studies
Male
Middle Aged
Minocycline - administration & dosage
Ointments
Periodontal Index
Periodontal Pocket - drug therapy - microbiology
Periodontitis - drug therapy - microbiology
Porphyromonas gingivalis - drug effects
Prevotella intermedia - drug effects
Statistics, nonparametric
Treatment Outcome
Treponema - drug effects
Abstract
A double-blind, randomized, parallel, comparative study was designed to evaluate the long-term safety and efficacy of subgingivally administered minocycline ointment versus a vehicle control.
One hundred four patients (104) with moderate to severe adult periodontitis (34 to 64 years of age; mean 46 years) were enrolled in the study. Following scaling and root planing, patients were randomized to receive either 2% minocycline ointment or a matched vehicle control. Study medication was administered directly into the periodontal pocket with a specially designed, graduated, disposable applicator at baseline; week 2; and at months 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12. Scaling and root planing was repeated at months 6 and 12. Standard clinical variables (including probing depth and attachment level) were evaluated at baseline and at months 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, and 15. Microbiological sampling using DNA probes was done at baseline; at week 2; and at months 1, 3, 6, 9, 12, and 15.
Both treatment groups showed significant and clinically relevant reductions in the numbers of each of the 7 microorganisms measured during the entire 15-month study period. When differences were detected, sites treated with minocycline ointment always produced statistically significantly greater reductions than sites which received the vehicle control. For initial pockets > or =5 mm, a mean reduction in probing depth of 1.9 mm was seen in the test sites, versus 1.2 mm in the control sites. Sites with a baseline probing depth > or =7 mm and bleeding index >2 showed an average of 2.5 mm reduction with minocycline versus 1.5 mm with the vehicle. Gains in attachment (0.9 mm and 1.1 mm) were observed in minocycline-treated sites, with baseline probing depth > or =5 mm and > or =7 mm, respectively, compared with 0.5 mm and 0.7 mm gain at control sites. Subgingival administration of minocycline ointment was well tolerated.
Overall, the results demonstrate that repeated subgingival administration of minocycline ointment in the treatment of adult periodontitis is safe and leads to significant adjunctive improvement after subgingival instrumentation in both clinical and microbiologic variables over a 15-month period.
PubMed ID
10397521 View in PubMed
Less detail

A survey of dental hygienist numbers in Canada, the European Economic area, Japan and the United States of America in 1998.

https://arctichealth.org/en/permalink/ahliterature62785
Source
Br Dent J. 2003 Nov 22;195(10):595-8; discussion 583
Publication Type
Article
Date
Nov-22-2003
Author
K A Eaton
H N Newman
E. Widström
Author Affiliation
Eastman Dental Institute for Oral Health Care Sciences, University College London, London. K.Eaton@eastman.ucl.ac.uk
Source
Br Dent J. 2003 Nov 22;195(10):595-8; discussion 583
Date
Nov-22-2003
Language
English
Publication Type
Article
Keywords
Canada
Comparative Study
Dental Hygienists - statistics & numerical data - supply & distribution
Dentists - statistics & numerical data - supply & distribution
Employment - statistics & numerical data
Europe
European Union - statistics & numerical data
Humans
Japan
Licensure
Population
United States
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aims of this study were to establish how many dental hygienists were licensed to practice in Canada, Japan, USA and the 18 member states of the European Economic Area (EEA) and to compare these with the populations and numbers of dentists practising in the countries concerned. METHOD: Data for the overall populations, numbers of 'active' dentists, of dental hygienists and of employed dental hygienists in the member states of the EEA in 1998 were taken from the responses to a Council of European Chief Dental Officers survey carried out in 2000/2001. Data for these variables for Canada, Japan and the USA in 1998 were accessed from published reports. The ratios of population: active dentist; population: dental hygienist; and active dentist: dental hygienist were calculated and compared. RESULTS: The overall populations and total number of active dentists in the 18 EEA member states and Canada plus Japan plus the USA were broadly similar in 1998 (EEA overall population 381 million with 245169 active dentists: Canada/Japan/USA overall population 421 million with 253825 active dentists). However, there were only 13295 dental hygienists in the EEA as opposed to a total of 215435 in Canada, Japan and the USA. In terms of population:dental hygienist and active dentist: dental hygienist ratios the UK was found to have proportionally far fewer dental hygienists than Canada, Japan, USA or the four Nordic members of the EEA. CONCLUSION: The survey revealed that relative to overall populations and numbers of dentists, there are far fewer dental hygienists in the EEA than in Canada, Japan and the USA and that scope for the UK to import dental hygienists from other EEA member states is probably very limited.
Notes
Comment In: Br Dent J. 2004 Feb 14;196(3):12714963418
PubMed ID
14631438 View in PubMed
Less detail