Clinical evaluation of a novel protocol for supportive periodontal care: A randomized controlled clinical trial.

Stähli, Alexandra; Ferrari, Jvana; Schatzmann, Anna Sophia; Weigel, Lucienne Dominique; Roccuzzo, Andrea; Imber, Jean-Claude; Duong, Ho-Yan; Eick, Sigrun; Lang, Niklaus P; Salvi, Giovanni E; Sculean, Anton (2024). Clinical evaluation of a novel protocol for supportive periodontal care: A randomized controlled clinical trial. (In Press). Journal of periodontology American Academy of Periodontology 10.1002/JPER.23-0527

Preview

Text Journal_of_Periodontology_-_2024_-_St_hli_-_Clinical_evaluation_of_a_novel_protocol_for_supportive_periodontal_care__A.pdf - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons: Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works (CC-BY-NC-ND). Download (779kB) | Preview

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy and the patient perception of subgingival debridement with either guided biofilm management (GBM) or conventional scaling and root planing (SRP) during supportive periodontal care (SPC).

METHODS

Forty-one patients in SPC were randomly assigned to either treatment with GBM or SRP every 6 months. The primary outcome was the percentage of bleeding on probing (BoP) at 1 year. Moreover, pocket probing depths (PPD), recession, and furcation involvements were also measured. Full-mouth and specific site analyzes were performed at baseline, 6 and 12 months of SPC. Patient comfort was evaluated using a visual analogue scale (VAS) at 12 months.

RESULTS

At 1 year, mean BoP percentage decreased from 12.2% to 9.0% (p = 0.191) and from 14.7% to 7.9% (p = 0.004) for the GBM and SRP groups, respectively. Furcation involved multirooted teeth but no through-and-through lesions were significantly fewer in the GBM than in the SRP group after 12 months (p = 0.015). The remaining parameters showed slight improvement in both groups without any statistically significant differences between the two groups after 1 year. Pain evaluation as patient reported outcome measures (pain evaluation) was in favor (p = 0.347) of the SRP group, while overall satisfaction was similar for both groups. Treatment time was not statistically significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.188).

CONCLUSION

In well-maintained SPC patients, SRP protocols resulted in significant clinical improvements in terms of BoP; however, for the other clinical improvements, similar efficacy for both GBM and SRP was observed.

Interest & Impact

Downloads

0 since deposited on 01 Feb 2024
0 in the past 12 months

Citations

5 Citations in Web of Science ®
6 Citations in Scopus

Search

in Google Scholar™

Services

Actions (login required)

Edit item

Actions (login required)

Edit item