4.6 Article

Experimental gingivitis: reproducibility of plaque accumulation and gingival inflammation parameters in selected populations during a repeat trial

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY
Volume 35, Issue 11, Pages 955-960

Publisher

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2008.01315.x

Keywords

gingivitis; periodontal diseases

Funding

  1. Ministry of Education, University and Research of Italy
  2. GABA International AG, Munchenstein, Switzerland

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: This study aimed to assess whether and to what extent the experimental gingivitis clinical parameters are reproducible within selected populations with different gingival inflammatory response (high or low) to plaque accumulation. In addition, the consistency in developing a high or low gingival inflammatory response within the selected populations was evaluated. Material and Methods: Thirty-seven subjects previously identified as high (HR, n=20) or low responders (LR, n=17) during an experimental gingivitis trial (first trial) were enrolled in a repeat experimental gingivitis trial. Results: No significant differences in plaque accumulation parameters and bleeding index values were detected between first and repeat trial for the 37 participants. Gingival index was higher during the repeat trial but behaved consistently in terms of the temporal changes in the course of both trials in both populations. Of the 17 LR participants, 10 manifested low susceptibility to inflammation after repeat trial. Among the 20 HR, 10 manifested high susceptibility to inflammation after repeat trial. Conclusions: These results indicate that our experimental gingivitis model is reproducible to some extent in selected populations. The high reproducibility of plaque and, to a lesser extent, of inflammation parameters under the employed controlled conditions could be a valuable tool in gingivitis research.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available