AIM: This split-mouth, randomized, clinical trial aimed to evaluate the efficacy of erbium-doped:yttrium-aluminium-garnet (Er:YAG) laser application in non-surgical periodontal treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 27 patients underwent fourmodalities of non-surgical therapy: supragingival debridement; scaling and root planing (SRP)+Er:YAG laser; Er:YAG laser; and SRP. Each strategy was randomly assigned and performed in one of the four quadrants. Clinical outcomes were evaluated at 3 and 6 months. Subjective benefits of patients have been evaluated by means of questionnaires. RESULTS: Six months after therapy, Er:YAG laser showed no statistical difference in clinical attachment gain with respect to supragingival scaling [0.15 mm (95% CI -0.16; 0.46)], while SRP showed a greater attachment gain than the supragingival scaling [0.37 mm (95% CI 0.05; 0.68)]. No difference resulted between Er:YAG laser+SRP and SRP alone [0.05 mm (95% CI -0.25; 0.36)]. CONCLUSIONS: The adjunctive use of Er:YAG laser to conventional SRP did not reveal a more effective result than SRP alone. Furthermore, the sites treated with Er:YAG laser showed similar results of the sites treated with supragingival scaling.
RCT Entities:
AIM: This split-mouth, randomized, clinical trial aimed to evaluate the efficacy of erbium-doped:yttrium-aluminium-garnet (Er:YAG) laser application in non-surgical periodontal treatment. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 27 patients underwent four modalities of non-surgical therapy: supragingival debridement; scaling and root planing (SRP)+Er:YAG laser; Er:YAG laser; and SRP. Each strategy was randomly assigned and performed in one of the four quadrants. Clinical outcomes were evaluated at 3 and 6 months. Subjective benefits of patients have been evaluated by means of questionnaires. RESULTS: Six months after therapy, Er:YAG laser showed no statistical difference in clinical attachment gain with respect to supragingival scaling [0.15 mm (95% CI -0.16; 0.46)], while SRP showed a greater attachment gain than the supragingival scaling [0.37 mm (95% CI 0.05; 0.68)]. No difference resulted between Er:YAG laser+SRP and SRP alone [0.05 mm (95% CI -0.25; 0.36)]. CONCLUSIONS: The adjunctive use of Er:YAG laser to conventional SRP did not reveal a more effective result than SRP alone. Furthermore, the sites treated with Er:YAG laser showed similar results of the sites treated with supragingival scaling.
Authors: Vamsi Lavu; Divya Kumar; Dhanadivya Krishnakumar; Aishwarya Maheshkumar; Amit Agarwal; Richard Kirubakaran; M S Muthu Journal: Lasers Med Sci Date: 2022-01-14 Impact factor: 3.161