The Effects of Biofilm Care on Subgingival Bacterial Motility and Halitosis
10.17135/jdhs.2019.19.3.162
- Author:
Yu Rin KIM
1
Author Information
1. Department of Dental Hygiene, Silla University, Busan 46958, Korea. dbfls1712@hanmail.net
- Publication Type:Original Article
- Keywords:
Bacteria;
Dental care;
Halitosis;
Oral health
- MeSH:
Bacteria;
Biofilms;
Dental Care;
Dental Clinics;
Dental Hygienists;
Halitosis;
Hope;
Humans;
Hydrogen Sulfide;
Methods;
Oral Health;
Oral Hygiene;
Periodontal Diseases;
Rubber;
Tooth
- From:
Journal of Dental Hygiene Science
2019;19(3):162-169
- CountryRepublic of Korea
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
BACKGROUND: Oral diseases are caused by various systemic and local factors, the most closely related being the biofilm. However, the challenges involved in removing an established biofilm necessitate professional care for its removal. This study aimed to evaluate and compare the effects of professional self and professional biofilm care in healthy patients to prevent the development of periodontal diseases. METHODS: Thirty-seven patients who visited the dental clinic between September 2018 and February 2019 were included in this study. Self-biofilm care was performed by routine tooth brushing and professional biofilm care was provided using the toothpick method (TPM) or the oral prophylaxis (OP) method using a rubber cup. Subgingival bacterial motility and halitosis (levels of hydrogen sulfide, H₂2S; methyl mercaptan, CH₃SH; and di-methyl sulfide, (CH₃)₂S) were measured before, immediately after, and 5 hours after the preventive treatment in the three groups. Repeated measures analysis of variance test was performed to determine significant differences among the groups. RESULTS: TPM was effective immediately after the prevention treatment, whereas OP was more effective after 5 hours (proximal surfaces, F=16.353, p<0.001; smooth surfaces, F=66.575, p<0.001). The three components responsible for halitosis were effectively reduced by professional biofilm care immediately after the preventive treatment; however, self-biofilm care was more effective after 5 hours (H₂S, F=3.564, p=0.011; CH₃SH, F=6.657, p<0.001; (CH₃)₂S, F=21.135, p<0.001). CONCLUSION: To prevent oral diseases, it is critical to monitor the biofilm. The dental hygienist should check the oral hygiene status and the ability of the patient to administer oral care. Professional biofilm care should be provided by assessing and treating each surface of the tooth. We hope to strengthen our professional in biofilm care through continuous clinical research.
