Assessment of Different Imaging Systems for Dental Plaque Scoring

Study Overview
=================
Brief Summary
-----------------
The aim of this study was to analyze the correlation between the dental plaque indices measured different imaging systems and conventional clinical indices that assess dental plaque. From among the patients who visited Marmara University, Faculty of Dentistry 30 adults between the age of 18-30, who had under 3 DMFT scores, were selected for full-mouth imaging. Digital dental photography, digital scanning system and fluorecam methods were used for taking intraoral images. The Turesky Modified Quigley Hein Plaque Index (TMQHPI) was scored both by the clinical examination method and on the images taken. The correlations between the clinical examinaton, digital photography, digital scanning system and fluorecam scores were analyzed. Maxillary and mandibulary anterior teeth's buccal surfaces were scored to TMQHPI after using disclosing agent.

Detailed Description
-----------------
The study was performed with 30 adult patients aged between 18-35, recruited from among the outpatients who visited the Marmara University, Faculty of Dentistry, Restorative Dentistry Department, agreed to the terms of the experiment, had a DMFT score 3 or lower, and had relatively even teeth arrangement. Among patients, those with orthodontic bracket placed, severe crowding of teeth not visually verified in the photograph, fixed or implant restoration installed, more than 3 DMFT score, and serious systemic diseases were excluded from the study. In order to standardize the study, the volunteers were informed that they shouldn't eat any nutrients and do oral hygiene practices after dinner. Visualization of plaque samples formed in the mouth at least 8-12 hours between 08:30 and 10:00 a.m. in the morning and collecting dental plaque samples for microbiological examination were performed after the volunteers signed the informed consent form. The Turesky Modified Quigley Hein Plaque Index (TMQHPI) was scored both by the clinical examination method and on the images taken. The correlations between the manuel examinaton, digital photography, digital scanning system and fluorecam scores were analyzed. Maxillary and mandibulary anterior teeth's buccal surfaces were scored to TMQHPI after using disclosing agent. Using the standard toothbrush provided to the volunteers, they were asked to brush their teeth twice a day for 21 days with the recommended brushing method. After 21 days, dental plaque scoring and imaging procedure was repeated and dental plaque samples were collected again and placed in Eppendorf tubes. Eppendorf tubes were kept at -80 °C during the study. Bacterial changes in the samples taken on Day 0 and Day 21 were examined by Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR) method in Marmara University Faculty of Medicine, Department of Clinical Microbiology. The levels in plaque samples of Streptococcus mutans, Lactobacillus acidophilus, Actinomyces viscosus, , Candida albicans, Staphylococcus aerus, were measured.

Official Title
-----------------
Assessment of Different Imaging Systems for Dental Plaque Scoring: an In-vivo Study

Conditions
-----------------
Dental Plaque Imaging Methods

Intervention / Treatment
-----------------
* Combination Product: Toothpastes


Participation Criteria
=================
Eligibility Criteria
-----------------
Inclusion Criteria: The volunteers between the ages of 18-35, No systemic disease, Teeth that do not contain hereditary, morphological, drug-induced structural changes, Not using orthodontic wires and appliances, Having a DMFT score of 3 and less than 3, Have not received antibiotic treatment in the last 6 weeks, Not using mouthwash in the last 6 weeks, Without dental calculus, Oral hygiene habits are similar to each other, University student or graduate, Thirty volunteers who were conscious of being able to understand and apply the guidelines set forth in the study were included. Exclusion criteria: Among volunteers, those with orthodontic bracket placed, severe crowding of teeth not visually verified in the photograph, fixed or implant restoration installed, more than 3 DMFT score, and serious systemic diseases were excluded from the study.

Ages Eligible for Study
-----------------
Minimum Age: 18 Years
Maximum Age: 35 Years

Sexes Eligible for Study
-----------------
All

Study Plan
=================
How is the study designed?
-----------------

Arms and Interventions

| Participant Group/Arm | Intervention/Treatment |
| --- | --- |
| 1. Signal Expert Protection<br>After scoring clinically and with dental plaque imaging methods, Signal Expert Protection toothpaste was given to 10 volunteers. | Combination Product: Toothpastes<br>* Signal Expert Protection: Conventional toothpaste including Sodium Lauryl Sulphate and fluoride. Colgate Hemp Seed Oil: Herbal toothpaste including hemp seed oil and also fluoride. Gumgumix: Herbal toothpaste including ginger extract (no fluoride).<br>* Other names: Signal Expert Protection, Colgate Hemp Seed Oil, Gumgumix;|
| 2. Colgate Hemp Seed Oil<br>After scoring clinically and with dental plaque imaging methods, Colgate Hemp Seed Oil toothpaste was given to 10 volunteers. | Combination Product: Toothpastes<br>* Signal Expert Protection: Conventional toothpaste including Sodium Lauryl Sulphate and fluoride. Colgate Hemp Seed Oil: Herbal toothpaste including hemp seed oil and also fluoride. Gumgumix: Herbal toothpaste including ginger extract (no fluoride).<br>* Other names: Signal Expert Protection, Colgate Hemp Seed Oil, Gumgumix;|
| 3. Gumgumix<br>After scoring clinically and with dental plaque imaging methods, Gumgumix toothpaste was given to 10 volunteers. | Combination Product: Toothpastes<br>* Signal Expert Protection: Conventional toothpaste including Sodium Lauryl Sulphate and fluoride. Colgate Hemp Seed Oil: Herbal toothpaste including hemp seed oil and also fluoride. Gumgumix: Herbal toothpaste including ginger extract (no fluoride).<br>* Other names: Signal Expert Protection, Colgate Hemp Seed Oil, Gumgumix;|

What is the study measuring?
-----------------
Primary Outcome Measures

| Outcome Measure | Measure Description | Time Frame |
| --- | --- | --- |
| 1. Dental plaque scoring clinically before staining agent | Dental plaque of the volunteer's anterior teeth were scored to Turesky Modified Quigley Hein Plaque Index | 15 minutes | 
| 2. Dental plaque scoring clinically after applying staining agent | Dental plaque of the volunteer's anterior teeth were scored to Turesky Modified Quigley Hein Plaque Index | 15 minutes | 
| 3.Dental plaque scoring after applying staining agent on the taken images with FluoreCam | Dental plaque of the volunteer's anterior teeth were scored on the images taken with FluoreCam to Turesky Modified Quigley Hein Plaque Index | 45 minutes | 
| 4. Dental plaque scoring after applying staining agent on the taken images with Digital Camera | Dental plaque of the volunteer's anterior teeth were scored on the images taken with FluoreCam to Turesky Modified Quigley Hein Plaque Index | 45 minutes | 
| 5. Dental plaque scoring after applying staining agent on the taken images with Intraoral Scanner | Dental plaque of the volunteer's anterior teeth were scored on the images taken with Intraoral Scanner to Turesky Modified Quigley Hein Plaque Index | 1 hour | 

 Terms related to the study
=================
Keywords Provided by Centre Hospitalier Valida
-----------------
dental plaque, dental photography, digital scanning system, fluorecam, Turesky Modified Quigley Hein Plaque Index