Search

Aim: To evaluate and compare the efficacy of Chlorhexidine and Probiotic mouthwashes in reducing plaque accumulation and gingivitis. Materials and methods: PubMed, Ovid SP, Embase, and Google Scholar databases were searched from years 1980 upto April 2020 for potential papers using relevant MeSH terms and pre-specified inclusion and exclusion criteria by two independent reviewers. Studies comparing Probiotics and Chlorhexidine in mouthwash form were included and evaluated for outcomes such as plaque score, gingival score. Results: A total of eleven articles were included for qualitative analysis, among them seven studies qualified for quantitative analysis. Random effects model was carried out to perform meta-analysis, basing on heterogeneity. Plaque index (PI): Significant reduction of plaque scores post-intervention were found when compared to baseline in both Probiotic mouthwash group [p=0.00001, MD: 0.87, 95% CI: 0.41 to 1.33] and chlorhexidine mouthwash groups [p=0.00001, MD: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.66 to 1.28]. No significant intergroup difference was found between Chlorhexidine and Probiotic mouthwash groups (p= 0.73). Gingival index (GI): Significant reduction of gingival index scores post-intervention were found when compared to baseline in both Probiotic mouthwash group [p=0.001, MD: 0.48, 95% CI: 0.19 to 0.77] and chlorhexidine mouthwash groups [p=0.0001, MD: 0.46, 95% CI: 0.23 to 0.68].

Objective: The present study was conducted to assess the validity of symptom score and Genital Health Clinical Evaluation (GHCE) score as diagnostic tools for urogenital atrophy in females of 40–75 years of age group. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional study including 600 females in the age group of 40–75 years attending gynecology outpatient department was conducted. They were given a symptom score based on their history. GHCE score and smears for vaginal maturation index (VMI) were taken and percentages of superficial cells were counted. Statistical tests of significance such as Karl Pearson's coefficient of correlation were applied. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, accuracy of GHCE score, and symptom score with VMI score were calculated. Results: The prevalence of urogenital atrophy in females of 40–75 years of age group using VMI scoring was 38.1%. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of total symptom score for diagnosing urogenital atrophy were 66.4%, 75.3%, 56.3%, 82.4%, and 72.5%, respectively. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, negative predictive value, and accuracy of GHCE score for diagnosing urogenital atrophy were 43.4%, 80.7%, 75.3%, 51.3%, and 59.3%, respectively. Conclusion: Both symptom score and GHCE score can be used as valid alternatives to VMI as diagnostic tools for urogenital atrophy in females of 40–75 years of age group at least in resource-poor settings.

Pulpotomy is the most commonly used treatment modality used in cariously involved primary vital primary teeth. Formocresol shows a good clinical success rate over the period of years but concerns raised due to its toxicity, mutagenicity, and carcinogenicity. The current review of literature provides an overview of recent advances in pulpotomy medicament that can be used as an alternative to formocresol.