AIM: To evaluate the clinical efficacy of (i) a single session of "full-mouth ultrasonic debridement" (Fm-UD) as an initial periodontal treatment approach and (ii) re-instrumentation of periodontal pockets not properly responding to initial subgingival instrumentation. METHODS:Forty-one patients, having on the average 35 periodontal sites with probing pocket depth (PPD) > or =5 mm, were randomly assigned to two different treatment protocols following stratification for smoking: a single session of full-mouth subgingival instrumentation using a piezoceramic ultrasonic device (EMS PiezonMaster 400, A+PerioSlim tips) with water coolant (Fm-UD) or quadrant scaling/root planing (Q-SRP) with hand instruments . At 3 months, all sites with remaining PPD> or =5 mm were subjected to repeated debridement with either the ultrasonic device or hand instruments. Plaque, PPD, relative attachment level (RAL) and bleeding following pocket probing (BoP) were assessed at baseline, 3 and 6 months. Primary efficacy variables were percentage of "closed pockets" (PPD< or =4 mm), and changes in BoP, PPD and RAL. RESULTS: The percentage of "closed pockets" was 58% at 3 months for the Fm-UD approach and 66% for the Q-SRP approach (p>0.05). Both treatment groups showed a mean reduction in PPD of 1.8 mm, while the mean RAL gain amounted to 1.3 mm for Fm-UD and 1.2 mm for Q-SRP (p>0.05). The re-treatment at 3 months resulted in a further mean PPD reduction of 0.4 mm and RAL gain of 0.3 mm at 6 months, independent of the use of ultrasonic or hand instruments. The efficiency of the initial treatment phase (time used for instrumentation/number of pockets closed) was significantly higher for the Fm-UD than the Q-SRP approach: 3.3 versus 8.8 min. per closed pocket (p<0.01). The efficiency of the re-treatment session at 3 months was 11.5 min. for ultrasonic and 12.6 min. for hand instrumentation (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: The results demonstrated that a single session of Fm-UD is a justified initial treatment approach that offers tangible benefits for the chronic periodontitis patient.
RCT Entities:
AIM: To evaluate the clinical efficacy of (i) a single session of "full-mouth ultrasonic debridement" (Fm-UD) as an initial periodontal treatment approach and (ii) re-instrumentation of periodontal pockets not properly responding to initial subgingival instrumentation. METHODS: Forty-one patients, having on the average 35 periodontal sites with probing pocket depth (PPD) > or =5 mm, were randomly assigned to two different treatment protocols following stratification for smoking: a single session of full-mouth subgingival instrumentation using a piezoceramic ultrasonic device (EMS PiezonMaster 400, A+PerioSlim tips) with water coolant (Fm-UD) or quadrant scaling/root planing (Q-SRP) with hand instruments . At 3 months, all sites with remaining PPD> or =5 mm were subjected to repeated debridement with either the ultrasonic device or hand instruments. Plaque, PPD, relative attachment level (RAL) and bleeding following pocket probing (BoP) were assessed at baseline, 3 and 6 months. Primary efficacy variables were percentage of "closed pockets" (PPD< or =4 mm), and changes in BoP, PPD and RAL. RESULTS: The percentage of "closed pockets" was 58% at 3 months for the Fm-UD approach and 66% for the Q-SRP approach (p>0.05). Both treatment groups showed a mean reduction in PPD of 1.8 mm, while the mean RAL gain amounted to 1.3 mm for Fm-UD and 1.2 mm for Q-SRP (p>0.05). The re-treatment at 3 months resulted in a further mean PPD reduction of 0.4 mm and RAL gain of 0.3 mm at 6 months, independent of the use of ultrasonic or hand instruments. The efficiency of the initial treatment phase (time used for instrumentation/number of pockets closed) was significantly higher for the Fm-UD than the Q-SRP approach: 3.3 versus 8.8 min. per closed pocket (p<0.01). The efficiency of the re-treatment session at 3 months was 11.5 min. for ultrasonic and 12.6 min. for hand instrumentation (p>0.05). CONCLUSION: The results demonstrated that a single session of Fm-UD is a justified initial treatment approach that offers tangible benefits for the chronic periodontitispatient.
Authors: Nithya Jagannathan; Aneesha Acharya; Ong Yi Farn; Kar Yan Li; Luigi Nibali; George Pelekos Journal: BMC Oral Health Date: 2019-04-27 Impact factor: 2.757