| Literature DB >> 33642740 |
Prashant Tyagi1, Vidya Dodwad2, Bhavna Jha Kukreja3, Pankaj Kukreja4.
Abstract
CONTEXT: The use of herbal compounds is a comparatively safer alternative to synthetic compounds for periodontal therapy. AIM: This study aims to investigate effect of extracts from pomegranate in a chip and gel form on periodontitis following scaling and root planing in adult periodontitis patients. SETTINGS ANDEntities:
Keywords: Chip; gel; gingiva; plaque; pomegranate
Year: 2021 PMID: 33642740 PMCID: PMC7904024 DOI: 10.4103/jisp.jisp_243_20
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Indian Soc Periodontol ISSN: 0972-124X
Figure 1CONSORT diagram of randomization; n = number of study participants
Figure 2Placement of Punica granatum chip at surgical site
Figure 3Placement of Punica granatum gel at surgical site
Intra and Inter group comparison of measured parameters with statistical significance
| Intra group comparison | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parameter and group ( | Day | |||||
| Baseline | Day 21 | Day 45 | Baseline to day 21 | Baseline to day 45 | Day 21 to 45 | |
| Plaque Index score | ||||||
| Group-1 (chip) | 2.00±0.47 | 1.30±0.48 | 1.40±0.70 | 0.029 | 0.072 | 1.000 |
| Group-2 (gel) | 1.70±0.48 | 1.30±0.48 | 1.10±0.32 | 0.148 | 0.014 | 0.938 |
| Group-3 (control) | 2.00±0.47 | 1.40±0.52 | 1.20±0.42 | 0.025 | 0.002 | 1.000 |
| Gingival Index score | ||||||
| Group-1 (chip) | 1.80±0.42 | 0.90±0.32 | 0.70±0.48 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.865 |
| Group-2 (gel) | 1.60±0.52 | 0.90±0.32 | 0.60±0.52 | 0.006 | <0.001 | 0.467 |
| Group-3 (control) | 1.90±0.32 | 1.10±0.32 | 0.90±0.32 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.506 |
| Probing pocket depth in millimetres | ||||||
| Group-1 (chip) | 5.40±0.52 | 4.20±0.79 | 3.40±0.70 | 0.001 | <0.001 | 0.041 |
| Group-2 (gel) | 5.00±0.00 | 3.90±0.32 | 3.70±0.48 | <0.001 | <0.001 | 0.573 |
| Group-3 (control) | 5.20±0.42 | 4.40±0.52 | 3.90±0.74 | 0.013 | <0.001 | 0.186 |
| Relative attachment Level in millimeters | ||||||
| Group-1 (chip) | 10.70±0.82 | 9.50±1.08 | 8.70±0.95 | 0.028 | <0.001 | 0.217 |
| Group-2 (gel) | 10.00±0.47 | 8.90±0.57 | 8.70±0.82 | 0.002 | <0.001 | 1.000 |
| Group-3 (control) | 9.50±0.97 | 8.60±1.27 | 8.10±1.10 | 0.250 | 0.028 | 0.980 |
| Plaque index score | ||||||
| Baseline | 0.509 | 1.000 | 0.509 | |||
| Day 21 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 1.000 | |||
| Day 45 | 0.587 | 0.587 | 1.000 | |||
| Gingival index score | ||||||
| Baseline | 0.909 | 1.000 | 0.381 | |||
| Day 21 | 1.000 | 0.506 | 0.506 | |||
| Day 45 | 1.000 | 1.000 | 0.436 | |||
| Probing pocket depth in millimeters | ||||||
| Baseline | 0.084 | 0.766 | 0.766 | |||
| Day 21 | 0.759 | 1.000 | 0.186 | |||
| Day 45 | 0.933 | 0.290 | 1.000 | |||
| Relative attachment level in millimeters | ||||||
| Baseline | 0.028 | <0.001 | 0.217 | |||
| Day 21 | 0.002 | <0.001 | 1.000 | |||
| Day 45 | 0.250 | 0.028 | 0.980 | |||
P – Probability of obtaining results
Figure 4Graphical representation of mean values of Plaque Index
Figure 5Graphical representation of mean values of Gingival Index
Figure 6Graphical representation of mean values of probing pocket depth
Figure 7Graphical representation of mean values of relative attachment level