AIM: Compare the treatment outcome after scaling and root-planing using local anesthesia gel or injected local anesthesia. MATERIAL AND METHOD:Thirty-eight patients with periodontitis and good general health were included in a randomized, single-blind, split-mouth clinical trial. Probing depths and clinical attachment levels were recorded at baseline and 6 weeks after treatment. Performed treatment procedures were scaling and root planing using two types of local anesthesia for separate treatment appointments. Anesthetics used were intra-pocket lidocaine and prilocaine gel (2.5% each) and injected articaine (1:100,000 adrenaline). Type of anesthesia for first appointment was randomized and switched for second appointment. Patients' pain perception and anesthesia acceptance were recorded on questionnaires. RESULTS: No influence of applied type of anesthesia could be detected for change of probing pocket depths and clinical attachment level (p > 0.05). These findings are valid even for deeper pockets. Gel-group had significant higher intra-operative pain perception. In retrospect 69% of patients favored gel. CONCLUSION: Treatment outcome is not compromised by use of anesthesia gel in comparison to injected anesthesia. The same beneficial results for probing pocket depths and clinical attachment gain could be detected. The majority of patients prefer local anesthesia gel despite a slightly greater procedural discomfort.
RCT Entities:
AIM: Compare the treatment outcome after scaling and root-planing using local anesthesia gel or injected local anesthesia. MATERIAL AND METHOD: Thirty-eight patients with periodontitis and good general health were included in a randomized, single-blind, split-mouth clinical trial. Probing depths and clinical attachment levels were recorded at baseline and 6 weeks after treatment. Performed treatment procedures were scaling and root planing using two types of local anesthesia for separate treatment appointments. Anesthetics used were intra-pocket lidocaine and prilocaine gel (2.5% each) and injected articaine (1:100,000 adrenaline). Type of anesthesia for first appointment was randomized and switched for second appointment. Patients' pain perception and anesthesia acceptance were recorded on questionnaires. RESULTS: No influence of applied type of anesthesia could be detected for change of probing pocket depths and clinical attachment level (p > 0.05). These findings are valid even for deeper pockets. Gel-group had significant higher intra-operative pain perception. In retrospect 69% of patients favored gel. CONCLUSION: Treatment outcome is not compromised by use of anesthesia gel in comparison to injected anesthesia. The same beneficial results for probing pocket depths and clinical attachment gain could be detected. The majority of patients prefer local anesthesia gel despite a slightly greater procedural discomfort.