Premium
Adult periodontitis treated with a new device for subgingival lavage—a randomized controlled clinical trial using a split‐mouth design
Author(s) -
Van Dijk L. J.,
Lie M. A.,
Van den Heuvel E. R.,
Van der Weijden G. A.
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
international journal of dental hygiene
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.674
H-Index - 38
eISSN - 1601-5037
pISSN - 1601-5029
DOI - 10.1111/idh.12344
Subject(s) - medicine , dentistry , debridement (dental) , oral hygiene , bleeding on probing , periodontitis , gingival and periodontal pocket , randomized controlled trial , gingival recession , surgery
Objectives To evaluate in patients with untreated adult periodontitis, the effect of treatment with a novel pocket irrigator/evacuator device ( IED ) compared to conventional subgingival debridement ( CPT ), both provided during the initial phase of active periodontal therapy. Methods This study was an examiner‐blind, randomized controlled clinical trial using a split‐mouth design. Systemically healthy patients with adult periodontitis were selected. Full‐mouth probing pocket depth ( PPD ), gingival bleeding on pocket probing scores ( BOPP ), gingival recession ( REC ) and dental plaque ( PI ) were assessed at baseline. All participants received oral hygiene instructions and supragingival prophylaxis including polishing. In 2 randomly assigned contra‐lateral quadrants, approximal sites were irrigated with the IED , whereas in the other quadrants, CPT was provided. The CPT consisted of subgingival debridement using ultrasonic devices followed by the use of hand instruments. At 3 months post‐treatment, the clinical parameters were re‐assessed. Results Twenty‐five patients met the inclusion criteria and were willing to participate. At 3 months post‐treatment, the PPD and BOPP had significantly improved for both treatment modalities. Pockets of ≥5 mm reduced by 0.64 mm in the IED group ( P < .001), compared to a reduction of 0.82 mm for the CPT group ( P < .001). With respect to the primary outcome parameter ( PPD ) and BI , the results with the IED were less pronounced. Between the test and control groups, no significant differences were observed for REC and PI . Conclusions Oral hygiene instructions, supragingival prophylaxis and subgingival lavage with the IED resulted in a significant reduction in PPD and BOPP . However, the effect does not reach the results of CPT which included the subgingival use of ultrasonic and hand instruments.