Premium
Impact of photodynamic therapy versus ultrasonic scaler on gingival health during treatment with orthodontic fixed appliances
Author(s) -
Abellán Rosa,
Gómez Clara,
IglesiasLinares Alejandro,
Palma Juan Carlos
Publication year - 2019
Publication title -
lasers in surgery and medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.888
H-Index - 112
eISSN - 1096-9101
pISSN - 0196-8092
DOI - 10.1002/lsm.23035
Subject(s) - prevotella intermedia , tannerella forsythia , fusobacterium nucleatum , medicine , eikenella corrodens , porphyromonas gingivalis , dentistry , oral hygiene , analysis of variance , photodynamic therapy , periodontitis , pathology , honeysuckle , chemistry , alternative medicine , traditional chinese medicine , organic chemistry , biology , bacteria , genetics
Objectives Poor oral hygiene during treatment with fixed appliances results in plaque accumulation. The presence of bacteria in the gingival crevice triggers an inflammatory reaction in the gingival tissues. The aim of this study was to compare the impact of two preventive treatments, photodynamic therapy (PDT), and ultrasonic scaler (US), on gingival health in patients under fixed orthodontic treatment. Methods Twenty orthodontic patients were randomly allocated to two groups: PDT or US. Each group received seven sessions [days 0, 15, 30, 45, 90 (3‐months follow‐up), 180 (6‐months follow‐up), 270 (9‐months follow‐up)] of experimental interventions, and clinical parameters [Plaque index(PI); gingival index(GI); probing depth(PD)], periodontopathogens [ Agreggatibacter actinomycetemcomitans ; Porphyromonas gingivalis ; Prevotella intermedia ; Micromonas micros ; Fusobacterium nucleatum ; Tannerella forsythia ; Campylobacter rectus ; Eikenella corrodens ; Capnocytopaga sp.] and protein markers [ IL‐1β;IL‐1ra;IL‐6;IL‐10;TNF‐α;FGF‐2/FGF basic ] were monitored at baseline and at 3, 6, and 9 months. ANOVA, Student's t ‐test with Bonferroni correction and ANOVA with multiple rank test were used to identify differences between groups ( P < 0.05). Results Clinical assessments [PI, GI, and PD] yielded no differences ( P > 0.05) between groups, which showed a major decrease at the start of the trial. Reductions in total colony forming units (log CFU reduction) were observed with both treatments, although to a greater extent in the PDT group, but with no differences between groups ( P > 0.05). Similar reductions in log CFU counts of P. gingivalis , P. intermedia , and F. nucleatum were observed in both groups ( P > 0.05). The two groups also showed similar trends for inflammatory mediators with decreased levels of IL‐1β, IL‐10, and TNF‐α, whereas IL‐6 and IL‐1ra levels remained stable and those of FGF‐2 were increased after both interventions, with no differences ( P > 0.05) between groups. Conclusion Both PDT and US methods proved similar effectiveness for the treatment of gingival inflammation induced by fixed orthodontic appliances. Lasers Surg. Med. 51:256–267, 2019. © 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.