Periodontitis is a biofilm-induced multifactorial disease characterized by non-reversible damage of the periodontal tissues. Dysbiosis of the subgingival microbiota plays a crucial role in periodontitis. In this regard, conventional periodontal treatment consists of subgingival mechanical instrumentation, but adjunctive methods, such as air-polishing powders, have also sparked considerable interest due to their ability to efficiently disrupt biofilm with minimal tissue damage. The aim of this narrative review is to provide an overview and critical discussion of the recent literature on the properties and interactions of air-polishing powders with oral bacteria and soft tissues. Fifteen studies were included. Eight recent clinical studies demonstrate that air-polishing powders (e.g., glycine, erythritol) can significantly reduce periodontal pathogens, thereby supporting their role in effective biofilm control; In vitro evidence from four included studies indicates cell-type-specific responses to different powders, with trehalose demonstrating superior biocompatibility compared with glycine and erythritol/chlorhexidine formulations. This variability highlights the importance of choosing the right powder to improve clinical outcomes and reduce tissue side effects. By integrating microbiological, cellular and histological findings, the objective of this review is to clarify the antibacterial efficacy and biocompatibility of air-polishing powders. Overall, air-polishing powders have been shown to be safe and effective as an adjunctive treatment, in both active periodontal and supportive periodontal therapy.

Background: Maintaining daily optimal dental hygiene, especially in medically vulnerable patients with periodontitis, remains challenging in dental practice. Mobile apps and other digital tools might offer useful support alongside traditional advice. Objectives: This study aimed to develop a mobile health app, PerioSupportPro, that helps patients improve their daily plaque control habits. It also reports on the pilot testing of the app’s usability and users’ perception in a small patient group. Methods: The app was created by a mixed team including periodontists, psychologists, developers, and data protection specialists. The first version included reminders, gamified elements, video tutorials, and motivational messages. After internal testing, a group of 18 patients tested the app and completed a feedback questionnaire that assessed usability (Q3–Q5), educational impact (Q6–Q8), motivation (Q9–Q11), and overall satisfaction (Q12–Q14). Cronbach’s alpha was used to check internal consistency, and non-parametric tests were applied for basic statistical comparisons. Results: The motivation section of the questionnaire showed acceptable consistency (α = 0.784), while usability and educational impact had lower values (α = 0.418 and 0.438). No clear differences were found between age groups. Satisfaction was positively associated with reminders and motivational items. Most appreciated features included reminders, the simple interface, and short videos. Based on the input provided by the questionnaire, a few improvements were made, and a second version of the app was prepared. Conclusions: Early user responses show that PerioSupportPro may help motivate and guide patients in their oral hygiene routine. While still in an early phase, the app seems well-received and ready for future clinical validation with more users.

Background/Objectives: In patients with clinically node-positive breast cancer, axillary response to neoadjuvant systemic treatment is heterogeneous and might depend on tumor biology. In patients with cN2 disease, the identification of factors linked to nodal response could improve risk stratification and contribute to the development of individualized post-neoadjuvant axillary management strategies. Methods: This cohort study has a retrospective design and included 560 female patients with invasive breast cancer (proven via biopsy) and cN2 disease. All patients received neoadjuvant systemic treatment accompanied by breast and axillary surgery at the Institute of Oncology “Prof. Dr. Ion Chiricuță” Cluj-Napoca (IOCN), Romania, between 2017 and 2025. The primary endpoint was the rate of axillary pathological complete response (pCR) following neoadjuvant systemic therapy, defined as ypN0. Secondary endpoints included breast pCR (ypT0), overall pCR (ypT0N0), the association between breast and axillary pathological response and survival analysis, including overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS). Clinicopathological predictors were assessed using univariate and multivariate logistic regression, while survival outcomes were evaluated with time-to-event analyses. Results: Complete axillary pathological response occurred in 282/560 patients (50.4%), and it increased to 53.2% when ypN0, including ypN0(i+). Breast pathological complete response was achieved in 31.2%, while overall pCR was 27.0%. Axillary response was significantly different in terms of molecular subtype, as ypN0 rates were 26.6% in Luminal A-like, 32.5% in Luminal B-like, 78.9% in HER2-positive and 72.6% in TNBC (p < 0.001). Nottingham grade 3 and HER2-positive disease were independently related to increased odds of ypN0, while TILs <10% were associated with lower odds of complete axillary response when multivariate analysis was performed. Breast and axillary responses were significantly associated (but were not interchangeable), as ypT0 showed 53.5% sensitivity and 91.9% specificity for ypN0. Overall pCR was associated with improved DFS (p = 0.040), while ypN0 and ypT0 were not significantly associated with DFS. No significant OS differences were noticed regarding pathological response. Conclusions: Nearly half of patients with cN2 breast cancer presented a complete axillary response after the completion of neoadjuvant treatment. Molecular subtype, histological grade and TILs were strongly associated with axillary response. In our cohort, breast pathological response alone was insufficient in order to be regarded as a predictor of nodal clearance, further supporting independent assessments of breast and axillary response. Further prospective studies are needed to determine whether these findings can inform individualized axillary management after neoadjuvant treatment.