Please be reminded that our annual general meeting will be held in Marco Polo Hong Kong Hotel at 9:00am on 3rd December 2017. The summary of our Society's financial statement can be found in the member area of our website at www.hkspid.org. We are looking forward to seeing you at the meeting.
List of Nominees for Election of councilors (2017-2019)
The following nominees have been received by Hong Kong Society of Periodontology and Implant Dentistry Limited for the election of councilors at the Annual General Meeting held on 3rd December 2017.
Dr. Tse Carl
Dr. Fung Kin Yue
Dr. Ngai Kwai Shing
Dr. Wong Sing Yan, Philip
Dr. Ngai Kwai Shing
Dr. Lai Man Leung, Stanley
Dr. Chan Wing Ho, Boris
Dr. Annie Chen
Dr. Trustin Choi
Dr. Lin Wai Shun, Wilson
Dr. Wong Sing Yan, Philip
Dr. Wan Chi Pui
As the number of nominations does not exceed the number of vacancies, all the nominees shall be deemed to have been elected to the council.
Annual General Meeting 2017
Date: 3rd December 2017
Venue: Centenary Room 1, G/F, Marco Polo Hong Kong Hotel,
3 Canton Road, Habour City, Tsim Sha Tsui, Kowloon, Hong Kong.
Registration : 8:30 to 9:00am
Annual General Meeting: 9:00 am to 1:00pm
"Principles of flap design and wound healing. From periodontal plastic surgery to implant management"
Prof. Maurizio S Tonetti
HKSPID Study Group
"Mechanical plaque control - revisit"
Venue: PPDH 7/F Lounge
From left to right: Dr. Chung-Yin Leung, Dr. Becky Woo, Dr. Kelvin Wan, Dr. Wilson Lin, Dr. Annie Chan, Dr. Trustin Choi, Dr. Yuen-Kwan Tse, Dr. Clive Fung, Dr. Vincent Ngai.
Comments and Discussions
There are many well described tooth brushing methods
developed since the introduction of modern type of toothbrush around 1930's. However,
there is no one particular brushing method found to be superior to the others.
In fact, many people habitually use more than one type of brushing technique on
different parts of the mouth. In the clinic, it may be advisable
to modify and improve patient’s existing brushing method for easy adaptation.
Overall there is insufficient evidence to claimed or
refute a benefit for flossing in reducing plaque.
Interdental brush was found to be more effective as
compare to flossing. However it's use is restricted to opened interdental space
where the brush can pass through easily.
There is no conclusive evidence to claim that woodstick
have beneficial effect on visible interdental plaque.
Oral irrigator does not have a beneficial effect in
reducing visible plaque. However, there seems to be a trend in favor of oral
irrigation in reducing gingival inflammation.
Interdental brush should be used when the interdental space is large
enough for it to pass through. Otherwise, flossing is recommended. Despite the
lack of evidence for its effectiveness, flossing is considered a logical way to
remove plaque in closed interdental space.
Size of a toothbrush head should be appropriate to the
size of the oral cavity so that it can be positioned easily on various locations
of the mouth.
Emphasis moved to using soft bristle toothbrush as compared to
the past when people tend to buy hard bristle toothbrush after we understand
more the importance of plaque removal rather calculus removal. Concern about
toothbrush trauma is also a factor for this move. There are
studies showing medium toothbrush clean better than soft bristle toothbrush. However,
the effectiveness of cleaning should not be traded off for the damage to the
cervical tissue especially when patient already show signs of toothbrush
There is no conclusive evidence found to support
whether taper on round-end bristle is more effective in plaque removal.
Brush head pattern
Angled bristle design showed a slightly better result
in plaque removal than the multi-level and flat-trim design numerically. The
possible benefit may be the result of its bristle being able to reach farther
into the interdental space.
There are toothbrushes specifically designed to use on implants.
However there is not any scientific evidence showing their
efficacy on plaque removal.
toothbrush vs electric toothbrush
With regard to gingivitis, there is moderate quality of evidence
that powered toothbrushes provide a statistically significant benefit when
compared with manual toothbrushes which corresponds to a 6% and 11% reduction
in gingivitis in the short term and in the long term respectively (Yaacob et
More evidence was for counter-rotational and
oscillating–rotating brushes which demonstrated a statistically significant
reduction in plaque and gingivitis.
Publication bias might be expected in the reporting of
toothbrush trials as manufacturers would likely want to have scientific support
for the effectiveness of their products.
Based on the outcome of this review, the authors concluded that powered
toothbrushes reduce plaque and gingivitis (slightly) more than manual tooth
brushing in the short and long term. The clinical importance of these findings
Frequency and duration of toothbrushing
Lang et al. (1973) found that brushing every 48 hours can maintain
gingival health and prevent gingivitis
As most individuals do not completely remove plaque at each brushing, higher
frequencies of brushing may be beneficial to gingival health. (Addy & Adriaens 1998, Jepsen 1998)
There is no significant gains could be achieved by increasing the
frequency to more than two times a day(Frandsen 1986)
A habit of brushing two times a day should optimize the chance of
maintaining gingival health and is easy to follow by patients.
There is some evidence showing that
increase in brushing time improve plaque removal. But there is no optimal tooth
brushing time can be identified. There is recommendation for brushing for 2
minutes or more. (Van der
Weijden et al. 2005)
Patients usually believe they spend more time than they actually
do in tooth brushing.
Individuals typically brush for about one minute or less but
most people significantly overestimate tooth-brushing duration. (Terezhalmy et
Most possibly there is no
one optimal brushing time for all but should be judged on an individual basis.
Cervical abrasion is
induced by multiple factors such as brushing force, brushing method,
toothbrushing duration, manual or powered toothbrush, toothbrush grip, brush
head shape, stiffness of the filaments, end-rounding of filaments,
toothbrushing frequency (Van der Weijden & Danser 2000)
An invitro experiment
revealed that under severe erosive condition, neither total mineral loss nor
the spatial loss of dentin significantly increase after brushing, regardless of
the force applied (Ganss et al. 2009)
Only few studies in the
dental literature concerning non-inflammatory gingival recessions resulting
from toothbrushing. Thus, the extent to which oral hygiene procedures can
traumatize the gingival tissue in still not clear. However, frequency
and method of brushing seem to be two more important contributing factors.
Free for HKSPID members
12th Asian Pacific Society of Periodontology Meeting
Please visit apsp2017seoul.org for more details
HKSPID Study Group 2017
Chemical Plaque Control - from evidence to practice
14th June 2017 (Wednesday)
7/F, Prince Philip Dental Hospital
34 Hospital Road, Sai Ying Pun, Hong Kong.
Dr. Ngai Kwai Shing Vincent
To gather a group of clinicians with the relevant expertise or interest to discuss on the issue of concern
Through structured critical discussion on the relevant evidence during the process, to produce clinically useful comments, recommendations, guidelines, or consensus statements on the concerned issue
From left to right: Dr. Clive Fung, Dr. Chung-Yin Leung, Dr. Yuen-Kwan Tse, Dr. Man-Ha Chan, Dr. Douglas Chong, Dr. Sin-Tsoi Ng, Dr. Sui-Cheung Sum, Dr. Annie Chan, Dr. Becky Woo, Dr. Trustin Choi, Dr. Wilson Lin, Dr. Kelvin Wan, Dr. Cheuk-Kuen Cheng, Dr. Hok-Ling Wong, Dr. Henry Liu
lIt was found that many studies on chemical plaque control involve certain amount of bias and heterogeneity.
lIn a comprehensive review “Efﬁcacy of adjunctive anti-plaque chemical agents in managing gingivitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis” by Serrano et al.in 2015, it stated that: “Regarding the independency of the study, in terms of funding and authors, most of the studies were economically supported by private companies with commercial interests in the results, which were clearly stated in the paper (n = 43) or was evident due to the presence of employees of the company in the list of authors (n = 31). Independent researchers (e.g. university staff) were authors in 70 papers, but in 38 of them, they worked together with employees of the funding company (total, n = 53) and/or with staff from a private research company (total, n = 24). Considering as low risk of bias those studies with independent authors and funding, four had low, eight unclear and 75 high risk.”
lHowever, with all the existing available evidence, it was found that chemical plaque control provides statistically signiﬁcant additional benefit over the control groups
lThe clinical benefit varied with different agents and with different indices used in the studies.
The additional effects were statistically significant in terms of Loe & Silness gingival index (46 comparisons, WMD -0.217), modified gingival index (n = 23, -0.415), gingivitis severity index (n = 26, -14.939%) or bleeding index (n = 23, -7.626%), with significant heterogeneity. For plaque, additional effects were found for Turesky (66 studies, WMD -0.475), Silness & Loe (n = 26, -0.109), and plaque severity (n = 12, -23.4%) indices, with significant heterogeneity (Serrano et al. 2015).
lWhether this benefit offer any clinical value is subjected to interpretation.
lThe studies didn’t address the cost-effectiveness issue
lNo specific recommendation for target group of patient who will benefit most from chemical plaque control
lIn many studies, participants in the control group were allowed to brush according to their normal regimen without proper oral hygiene instruction.
lAs early as 1965, Lo¨e et al. Showed, in the well-known “Experimental Gingivitis” study, that proper mechanical tooth brushing is effective in treating gingivitis.
lLang et al.(1973) demonstrated that students who thoroughly removed plaque at least every second day, did not develop clinical signs of gingival inflammation over a 6-week period. This included the use of inter-proximal aids (dental floss and toothpicks) as well as the toothbrush.
lIn the well-motivated and properly instructed individuals who are willing to invest the necessary time and effort, mechanical measures using traditional toothbrushes and adjunctive manual (inter-dental) devices are effective in controlling plaque. Although maintaining a dentition close to plaque free is not easy.
Comments and recommendations
1.One should not rely on chemical plaque control to solve gingivitis problem. On the other hand, good mechanical plaque control can prevent and successfully treat gingivitis.
2.Mouth rinse should not be recommended as the first line of management strategy for gingivitis.
3.We recommend improving patients’ oral hygiene by mechanical tooth bushing and interdental cleaning.
4.Toothpaste with antiplaque agent may be used as it does not involve extra procedure.
5.Routine use of mouth rinse for everyone is not recommended.
6.Mouth rinse may be used in certain clinical situations: (Whenever patient is unable to perform proper mechanical plaque control).
a.Temporary use after oral surgery.
b.Inability to clean at certain areas.
c.Patient with reduced manual dexterity.
d.When patients, due to various reasons, cannot achieve sufficient oral cleanliness after repeated exhaustive effort of oral hygiene instruction.
When prescribing mouth rinse, clinician should also take into account of the possible side effects and cost-effectiveness of its use.
In the Oral Health Survey 2011, 15.4% Hong Kong people believe mouth rinse can prevent gum disease but only 47.9% think that tooth brushing can prevent gum disease.
One should be careful when people over enthusiastically promote the effect of chemical plaque control, there is a risk that the public may misinterpret chemical plaque control agent as a powerful and essential agent that they can rely on, hence compromise the desire to improve their own tooth brushing.
12th Asian Pacific Society of Periodontology Meeting
The 12th APSP Meeting will be held in Seoul on September 22-24, 2017.
The theme of this meeting is "Contemporary concepts in periodontology and implant dentistry" and the scientific program will showcase the cutting edge advances in the specialty and highlight best researches from member countries.New basic and clinical research findings presented will invigorate you and help you better the health of all your patients.
For more information, please visit the following webpage for more details:
Hong Kong Society of Periodontology and implant Dentistry Ltd.
Prof Maurizio S Tonetti, Clinical Professor and discipline co-ordinator in Periodontology at the Faculty of Dentistry, The University of Hong Kong and Executive Director, European Research Group on Periodontology (ERGOPerio). Formerly: Professor and Head, Department of Periodontology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Connecticut Health Science Centre. Professor and Head, Department of Periodontology at University College London – UK. Adjunct Professor, University of Berne – Switzerland, and University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill – USA. He serves as Editor in Chief of the Journal of Clinical Periodontology.
How to fully capture the benefits of periodontal regeneration to change prognosis of compromised teeth. State of the art practice.
Winning the challenge of periodontitis: integrated preventive and therapeutic care pathway in primary and specialist practice.
Lecture 1 + AGM
Lecture 2 and Periodontal Experts Panel Discussion
Common head and neck pain that you would encounter in a dental clinic
Date: 11 November 2016 (Friday) Time: 7:30-9:30 Speaker: Dr Sunny Lee (Specialist in Pain Medicine) Venue: 7/F Lounge, PPDH
Course fee: $500 (Free for members)
Light refreshment provided before and after the seminar
Dr Lee graduated from the Chinese University of Hong Kong. After finished his training in Anaesthesiology and Pain Medicine in Hong Kong, he went to Australia to pursuit further training in pain medicine. After practicing in Australia for some time, he went back to Hong Kong and became the first registered pain medicine specialist here. Currently, he runs his private practices in both Hong Kong and Australia. He is the pioneer in many areas in the field. For example, he is the only private practitioner providing services for spinal cord stimulation at present.
Pain is a commonly encountered problem in clinical practice. It is considered as the fifth vital sign in modern medicine. Researches show chronic pain affects about 20% of population. In the talk, the speaker would share with the audiences different aspects of pain medicine. He would explore some basic science of pain, principles of pain treatment, types and nature of analgesics and some commonly encountered chronic pain problems that may encountered by dentists.