Ning Zhao1, Shao-hua Ge, Pi-shan Yang. 1. Department of Oral Medicine, School of Stomatology, Shandong University, Jinan 250012, Shandong Province, China. waiker2000@163.com
Abstract
PURPOSE: To explore the clinical effect of full-mouth scaling and root planning (FM-SRP) on chronic periodontitis with the comparison of quadrant scaling and root planning (Q-SRP). METHODS:60 patients with chronic periodontitis were randomly divided into 2 groups. The FM-SRP group received full-mouth scaling and root planning completed within the same day, while the Q-SRP group received quadrant scaling and root planning once a week for 4 weeks. Clinical parameters of plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), bleeding on probing (BOP), probing depth (PD) and attachment loss (AL) were collected at baseline, 3 and 6 months after treatment, as well as the postoperative reaction. The data were analyzed by rank sum test (PI,GI), t test (PD,AL) and Chi square test (BOP), respectively. RESULTS: When compared with the baseline, both therapies resulted in significant improvements in all clinical parameters at the end of 3 and 6 months (P<0.01). However, there were no significant difference between the two groups at any time point (P>0.05). 24 hours after the first treatment, the percentage of patients with postoperative reactions were significantly higher in FM-SRP group than that in Q-SRP group (P<0.05), but the patients could tolerate these reactions. CONCLUSION: Both FM-SRP and Q-SRP are efficacious in treating chronic periodontitis, and the clinician can select the proper treatment modality according to the demand of clinical practice.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: To explore the clinical effect of full-mouth scaling and root planning (FM-SRP) on chronic periodontitis with the comparison of quadrant scaling and root planning (Q-SRP). METHODS: 60 patients with chronic periodontitis were randomly divided into 2 groups. The FM-SRP group received full-mouth scaling and root planning completed within the same day, while the Q-SRP group received quadrant scaling and root planning once a week for 4 weeks. Clinical parameters of plaque index (PI), gingival index (GI), bleeding on probing (BOP), probing depth (PD) and attachment loss (AL) were collected at baseline, 3 and 6 months after treatment, as well as the postoperative reaction. The data were analyzed by rank sum test (PI,GI), t test (PD,AL) and Chi square test (BOP), respectively. RESULTS: When compared with the baseline, both therapies resulted in significant improvements in all clinical parameters at the end of 3 and 6 months (P<0.01). However, there were no significant difference between the two groups at any time point (P>0.05). 24 hours after the first treatment, the percentage of patients with postoperative reactions were significantly higher in FM-SRP group than that in Q-SRP group (P<0.05), but the patients could tolerate these reactions. CONCLUSION: Both FM-SRP and Q-SRP are efficacious in treating chronic periodontitis, and the clinician can select the proper treatment modality according to the demand of clinical practice.