Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences · 2025
Comparative Evaluation of Bioactive Glass Microspheres versus Chlorhexidine Chips in the Treatment of Chronic Periodontitis: A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Parihar Anuj Singh, Patel Jay T, Patadiya Hiren H, Sadananda K, Adatrow Pradeep, Laddha Rashmi, Kumar Santosh
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Chronic periodontitis is a prevalent inflammatory disease characterized by the progressive destruction of the tooth-supporting apparatus. This randomized controlled clinical trial investigated the comparative efficacy of two such adjuncts: bioactive glass microspheres, known for their regenerative potential, and chlorhexidine chips, renowned for their antimicrobial properties.
METHODS: Participants with moderate-to-severe chronic periodontitis were randomly allocated to three groups: Group 1 received SRP plus bioactive glass microspheres, Group 2 received SRP plus chlorhexidine chips, and Group 3 underwent SRP alone (control). Clinical parameters, including probing pocket depth (PPD), clinical attachment level (CAL), and bleeding on probing (BOP), were meticulously recorded at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months post-intervention.
RESULTS: All three groups exhibited statistically significant improvements in all clinical parameters from baseline to the 6-month follow-up. However, the groups receiving adjunctive therapies demonstrated superior outcomes compared to SRP alone. Intergroup comparisons revealed statistically significant differences between the bioactive glass group and the control group (P < 0.01) and between the chlorhexidine group and the control group (P < 0.05) for all parameters.
CONCLUSION: Both bioactive glass microspheres and chlorhexidine chips, when used as adjuncts to SRP, offer significant clinical advantages in the treatment of chronic periodontitis compared to SRP alone. The superior performance of bioactive glass microspheres suggests their potential as a preferred adjunctive therapy, possibly attributed to their combined regenerative and antimicrobial properties.
METHODS: Participants with moderate-to-severe chronic periodontitis were randomly allocated to three groups: Group 1 received SRP plus bioactive glass microspheres, Group 2 received SRP plus chlorhexidine chips, and Group 3 underwent SRP alone (control). Clinical parameters, including probing pocket depth (PPD), clinical attachment level (CAL), and bleeding on probing (BOP), were meticulously recorded at baseline, 3 months, and 6 months post-intervention.
RESULTS: All three groups exhibited statistically significant improvements in all clinical parameters from baseline to the 6-month follow-up. However, the groups receiving adjunctive therapies demonstrated superior outcomes compared to SRP alone. Intergroup comparisons revealed statistically significant differences between the bioactive glass group and the control group (P < 0.01) and between the chlorhexidine group and the control group (P < 0.05) for all parameters.
CONCLUSION: Both bioactive glass microspheres and chlorhexidine chips, when used as adjuncts to SRP, offer significant clinical advantages in the treatment of chronic periodontitis compared to SRP alone. The superior performance of bioactive glass microspheres suggests their potential as a preferred adjunctive therapy, possibly attributed to their combined regenerative and antimicrobial properties.