PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine if the use of a periodontal endoscope improves periodontal outcomes of scaling/root planing when compared to scaling/root planing alone. METHODS:Thirty subjects with moderate periodontitis were recruited from the University of Minnesota School of Dentistry. Of these, 26 completed the study. A randomized split mouth design was used to evaluate periodontal outcomes at 6 to 8 weeks and 3 month intervals after sites within 2 quadrants of each subject were scaled and root planed with or without the use of the Perioscope™. Paired t-tests were used to test whether there were within-patient differences in improvement between Perioscope™ and non-Perioscope™ sites as measured by periodontal measurements (probing depth, clinical attachment level) and indices of gingival inflammation, including bleeding on probing (BOP) and gingival inflammation (GI). P-values less than 0.05 were declared to be statistically significant. RESULTS:Less BOP and GI were found in the Perioscope™ sites at visit 1 and visit 2. Reduction in pocket depth and clinical attachment loss was achieved for all sites but probing depth and clinical attachment level changes were found to be unrelated to the use of the Perioscope™. Mean probing depth (SD) was reduced from 5.29 mm (0.4) to 3.55 mm (0.8) in the Perioscope™ sites and 5.39 mm (0.5) to 3.83 mm (1.2) in non-Perioscope™ sites from baseline measurements to visit 2. CONCLUSION: The adjunctive use of the periodontal endoscope improved periodontal outcomes with respect to gingival inflammation and bleeding upon probing. The adjunctive use of the Perioscope™ was not found to be superior to traditional scaling and root planing with regard to pocket depth reduction and clinical attachment loss.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine if the use of a periodontal endoscope improves periodontal outcomes of scaling/root planing when compared to scaling/root planing alone. METHODS: Thirty subjects with moderate periodontitis were recruited from the University of Minnesota School of Dentistry. Of these, 26 completed the study. A randomized split mouth design was used to evaluate periodontal outcomes at 6 to 8 weeks and 3 month intervals after sites within 2 quadrants of each subject were scaled and root planed with or without the use of the Perioscope™. Paired t-tests were used to test whether there were within-patient differences in improvement between Perioscope™ and non-Perioscope™ sites as measured by periodontal measurements (probing depth, clinical attachment level) and indices of gingival inflammation, including bleeding on probing (BOP) and gingival inflammation (GI). P-values less than 0.05 were declared to be statistically significant. RESULTS: Less BOP and GI were found in the Perioscope™ sites at visit 1 and visit 2. Reduction in pocket depth and clinical attachment loss was achieved for all sites but probing depth and clinical attachment level changes were found to be unrelated to the use of the Perioscope™. Mean probing depth (SD) was reduced from 5.29 mm (0.4) to 3.55 mm (0.8) in the Perioscope™ sites and 5.39 mm (0.5) to 3.83 mm (1.2) in non-Perioscope™ sites from baseline measurements to visit 2. CONCLUSION: The adjunctive use of the periodontal endoscope improved periodontal outcomes with respect to gingival inflammation and bleeding upon probing. The adjunctive use of the Perioscope™ was not found to be superior to traditional scaling and root planing with regard to pocket depth reduction and clinical attachment loss.