Comparison of two methods of dental prophylaxis: evaluation of arterial pressure and patient comfort in a clinical randomized controlled trial
Comparação entre dois métodos de profilaxia dental: avaliação da pressão arterial e conforto do paciente. Estudo clínico controlado e randomizado
Ferreira, Camila Lopes; Santos, Lucio Murilo dos; Melo Filho, Antonio Braulino de; Santamaria, Mauro Pedrine; Jardini, Maria Aparecida Neves
Abstract
Introduction: The number of hypertensive patients is increasing and prophylaxis with bicarbonate jet are widely performed in clinical practice using large amounts of this substance in a short period of time, which may lead to increased arterial pressure. In the literature there are several studies that analyze the effect of sodium bicarbonate jet on the biofilm and dental structures, but not report the effect on arterial pressure. Aim: Evaluated the change in arterial pressure before and after two procedures of dental prophylaxis, jet baking soda application and conventional prophylaxis, and patient opinion of the comfort of each system was obtained. Material and method: We selected 20 patients aged 18 to 30 in need of prophylaxis to remove biofilm. The patients were placed into three different treatment groups: sodium bicarbonate jet (G1), conventional prophylaxis (G2) and control (G3), with a one month interval between treatments. Patients were divided into groups randomly. Measurements were performed immediately before and after the procedure, 15 and 30 minutes after the end of treatment. Patient comfort was measured using a Visual Analog Scale (VAS) at the end of each treatment. Data were analyzed by analysis of variance. Result: There was a statistically significant difference in the comfort of the procedures, with G2 and G3 being better than G1. Additionally, an increase in the diastolic blood pressure was observed in sodium bicarbonate jet group evaluated just after the procedure. Conclusion: The conventional prophylaxis is more comfortable from the patient stand point and does not alter arterial pressure.
Keywords
Resumo
Introdução: A quantidade de pacientes hipertensivos está aumentando e, a profilaxia com jato de bicarbonato de sódio é bastante empregada na prática clínica usando grande quantidade dessa substância em um período curto de tempo que poderia aumentar a pressão arterial. Objetivo: Foi avaliado a alteração da pressão arterial antes e após os dois métodos de profilaxia dental e obtido a opinião de conforto do paciente em relação a esses métodos. Material e método: Selecionou-se 20 pacientes, na faixa etária de 18 a 30 anos, que necessitavam de profilaxia para remoção de biofilme dental e foram submetidos aos três tipos diferentes de tratamento: jato de bicarbonato de sódio (G1), profilaxia convencional (G2), e controle (G3), em intervalos de um mês entre eles. Os pacientes foram divididos de forma randomizada. As aferições realizaram-se antes da profilaxia, imediatamente ao fim do procedimento, 15 e 30 minutos após o término do tratamento. O conforto do paciente foi medido por meio de uma Escala Analógica Visual (VAS) após o final de cada tratamento. Os dados foram analisados por meio de teste de Variância. Resultado: Houve diferença estatisticamente significante quanto ao conforto dos procedimentos, sendo G2 e G3 melhores que G1. Observou-se aumento da pressão arterial diastólica no grupo jato de bicarbonato de sódio imediatamente após a profilaxia. Conclusão: A profilaxia convencional é mais confortável do ponto de vista do paciente e não altera a pressão arterial.
Palavras-chave
References
1. Petersilka GJ, Ehmke B, Flemmig TF. Antimicrobial effects of mechanical debridement. Periodontol 2000. 2002;28(1):56-71. http://dx.doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0757.2002.280103.x. PMid:12013348.
2. Berkstein S, Reiff RL, McKinney JF, Killoy WJ. Supragingival root surface removal during maintenance procedures utilizing an air-powder abrasive system or hand scaling. An in vitro study. J Periodontol. 1987 May;58(5):327-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.1902/jop.1987.58.5.327. PMid:3295185.
3. Weaks LM, Lescher NB, Barnes CM, Holroyd SV. Clinical evaluation of the Prophy-Jet as an instrument for routine removal of tooth stain and plaque. J Periodontol. 1984 Aug;55(8):486-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1902/jop.1984.55.8.486. PMid:6592321.
4. Barnes CM, Russell CM, Gerbo LR, Wells BR, Barnes DW. Effects of an air-powder polishing system on orthodontically bracketed and banded teeth. Am J Orthod Dentofacial Orthop. 1990 Jan;97(1):74-81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0889-5406(05)81712-3. PMid:2136972.
5. Shultz PH, Brockmann-Bell SL, Eick JD, GrossKB, Chappell RP, Spencer P. Effects of air-powder polishing on the bond strength of orthodontic bracket adhesive systems. J Dent Hyg. 1993 Feb;67(2):74-80. PMid:17233169.
6. Kontturi-Närhi V, Markkanen S, Markkanen H. Effects of airpolishing on dental plaque removal and hard tissues as evaluated by scanning electron microscopy. J Periodontol. 1990 Jun;61(6):334-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1902/jop.1990.61.6.334. PMid:2366141.
7. Atkinson DR, Cobb CM, Killoy WJ. The effect of an air-powder abrasive system on in vitro root surfaces. J Periodontol. 1984 Jan;55(1):13-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1902/jop.1984.55.1.13. PMid:6319658.
8. Horning GM, Cobb CM, Killoy WJ. Effect of an air-powder abrasive system on root surfaces in periodontal surgery. J Clin Periodontol. 1987 Apr;14(4):213-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.1987.tb00969.x. PMid:3294915.
9. Jost-Brinkmann PG. The influence of air polishers on tooth enamel: an in-vitro study. J Orofac Orthop. 1998;59(1):1-16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01321551. PMid:9505051.
10. Holtfreter B, Schwahn C, Biffar R, Kocher T. Epidemiology of periodontal diseases in the study of health in Pomerania. J Clin Periodontol. 2009 Feb;36(2):114-23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2008.01361.x. PMid:19207886.
11. HugosonA, Sjödin B, Norderyd O. Trends over 30 years, 1973-2003, in the prevalence and severity of periodontal disease.J Clin Periodontol. 2008 May;35(5):405-14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2008.01225.x. PMid:18433384.
12. Eliades GC, TzoutzasJG, Vougiouklakis GJ. Surface alterations on dental restorative materials subjected to an air-powder abrasive instrument. J Prosthet Dent. 1991 Jan;65(1):27-33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(91)90042-U. PMid:1827842.
13. Liebenberg WH, Crawford BJ. Subcutaneous, orbital, and mediastinal emphysema secondary to the use of an air abrasive device.Quintessence Int. 1997 Jan;28(1):31-8. PMid:10332352.
14. Lubow RM, Cooley RL. Effect of air-powder abrasive instrument on restorative materials. J Prosthet Dent. 1986 Apr;55(4):462-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-3913(86)90177-0. PMid:3457178.
15. Hunter KM, Holborow DW, Kardos TB, Lee-Knight CT, Ferguson MM. Bacteraemia and tissue damage resulting from air polishing. Br Dent J. 1989 Oct;167(8):275-8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4806998. PMid:2590584.
16. Kontturi-Narhi V, Markkanen S, Markkanen H. The gingival effects of dental airpolishing as evaluated by scanning electron microscopy. J Periodontol. 1989 Jan;60(1):19-22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1902/jop.1989.60.1.19. PMid:2921708.
17. Kozlovsky A, Artzi Z, Nemcovsky CE, Hirshberg A. Effect of air-polishing devices on the gingiva: histologic study in the canine. J Clin Periodontol. 2005 Apr;32(4):329-34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2005.00678.x. PMid:15811047.
18. Newman PS, Silverwood RA, Dolby AE. The effects of an airbrasive instrument on dental hard tissues, skin and oral mucosa. Br Dent J. 1985 Jul;159(1):9-12. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.4805629. PMid:2992557.
19. Petersilka G, Faggion CM Jr, Stratmann U, Gerss J, Ehmke B, Haeberlein I, et al. Effect of glycine powder air-polishing on the gingiva. J Clin Periodontol. 2008 Apr;35(4):324-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2007.01195.x. PMid:18294230.
20. Gutmann ME. Air polishing: a comprehensive review of the literature. J Dent Hyg. 1998;72(3):47-56. PMid:9693568.
21. Barnes CM. An in-depth look at air polishing. Dimens Dent Hyg. 2010 Mar;8(3):32, 34-6, 40.
22. Graumann SJ, Sensat ML, Stoltenberg JL. Air polishing; a review of current literature. J Dent Hyg. 2013 Aug;87(4):173-80. PMid:23986410.
23. Bains VK, MadanC, Bains R. Tooth polishing: relevance in present day periodontal practice.J Indian Soc Periodontol. 2009 Jan-Apr;13(1):58-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.4103/0972-124X.51899. PMid:20376245.
24. Campbell NR, Lackland DT, Niebylski ML. High blood pressure: why prevention and control are urgent and important; a 2014 fact sheet from the World Hypertension League and the International Society of Hypertension. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2014 Aug;16(8):551-3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jch.12372. PMid:25040331.
25. Guyton AC, Hall JE. Textbook of medical physiology. Pennsylvania: Elsevier Saunders; 2006.
26. SnyderJA, McVay JT, Brown FH, Stoffers KW, Harvey RC, Houston GD, et al. The effect of air abrasive polishing on blood pH and electrolyte concentrations in healthy mongrel dogs. J Periodontol. 1990 Feb;61(2):81-6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1902/jop.1990.61.2.81. PMid:2156042.
27. O’Leary TJ, Drake RB, Naylor JE. The plaque control record. J Periodontol. 1972 Jan;43(1):38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1902/jop.1972.43.1.38. PMid:4500182.
28. Chambrone LA, Antonelli RH, Lascala NT. Estudo clínico comparativo da remoçäo da placa bacteriana supragengival com taça de borracha versus Profident: avaliaçäo da eficiência e receptividade dos métodos. Rev Paul Odontol. 1988 Set-Out;10(5):47, 50-3.
29. Saad JRC, Andrade MF, Fontana UF, Porto Neto ST, Mandarino F. Avaliação geral da utilização clínica do jato de bicarbonato de sódio. Odontol Mod. 1992 Mar-Abr;19(2):14-6.
30. Rawson RD, Nelson BN, Jewell BD, Jewell CC. Alkalosis as a potential complication of air polishing systems. A pilot study. Dent Hyg (Chic). 1985 Nov;59(11):500-3. PMid:3000840.
Facebook
Google+
Twitter
LinkedIn
Mendeley
StumbleUpon
CiteULike
Reddit
Email