Quintessence international (Berlin, Germany : 1985) · 2015
The effects of erythritol air-polishing powder on microbiologic and clinical outcomes during supportive periodontal therapy: Six-month results of a randomized controlled clinical trial.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Hägi Tobias T, Hofmänner Petra, Eick Sigrun, Donnet Marcel, Salvi Giovanni E, Sculean Anton, Ramseier Christoph A
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To characterize the physical characteristics of a new low abrasive erythritol powder (EPAP) and to evaluate its influence on the clinical and microbiologic parameters over a period of 6 months in patients undergoing supportive periodontal therapy (SPT).
METHOD AND MATERIALS: Prior to the clinical application, the particle size and abrasion level of EPAP were compared to glycine air-polishing powder (GPAP) ex vivo. Subsequently, 40 chronic periodontitis patients previously enrolled in SPT were randomly assigned into two groups for the treatment with subgingival EPAP or repeated scaling and root planing (SRP). At baseline (BL), bleeding on probing positive (BOP+) sites with probing pocket depth (PPD) of ≥ 4 mm but no detectable calculus were defined as study sites. During SPT, these sites were either treated by EPAP or SRP at BL, 3, and 6 months (3M, 6M). When indicated, additional SRP was provided. Plaque Index, BOP, PPD, clinical attachment level (CAL), and subgingival plaque were evaluated at BL and 6M.
RESULTS: EPAP yielded lower abrasiveness and smaller particle sizes when compared to GPAP. In 38 patients completing the study, EPAP and SRP resulted in significant reductions of BOP% (EPAP, 40.45%; SRP, 42.53%), PPD (EPAP, -0.67; SRP, -0.68), and increase of CAL (EPAP, 0.48; SRP, 0.61) while at 6M no statistically significant between-group differences were observed (P > .05). Microbiologic evaluation revealed minor shifts in the composition of the subgingival biofilm without influence on periodontopathogenic bacteria.
CONCLUSION: The subgingival use of EPAP by means of an air-polishing device may be considered safe and may lead to comparable clinical and microbiologic outcomes to those obtained with SRP.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The subgingival use of EPAP appears to represent a promising modality for the removal of subgingival biofilm during SPT.
METHOD AND MATERIALS: Prior to the clinical application, the particle size and abrasion level of EPAP were compared to glycine air-polishing powder (GPAP) ex vivo. Subsequently, 40 chronic periodontitis patients previously enrolled in SPT were randomly assigned into two groups for the treatment with subgingival EPAP or repeated scaling and root planing (SRP). At baseline (BL), bleeding on probing positive (BOP+) sites with probing pocket depth (PPD) of ≥ 4 mm but no detectable calculus were defined as study sites. During SPT, these sites were either treated by EPAP or SRP at BL, 3, and 6 months (3M, 6M). When indicated, additional SRP was provided. Plaque Index, BOP, PPD, clinical attachment level (CAL), and subgingival plaque were evaluated at BL and 6M.
RESULTS: EPAP yielded lower abrasiveness and smaller particle sizes when compared to GPAP. In 38 patients completing the study, EPAP and SRP resulted in significant reductions of BOP% (EPAP, 40.45%; SRP, 42.53%), PPD (EPAP, -0.67; SRP, -0.68), and increase of CAL (EPAP, 0.48; SRP, 0.61) while at 6M no statistically significant between-group differences were observed (P > .05). Microbiologic evaluation revealed minor shifts in the composition of the subgingival biofilm without influence on periodontopathogenic bacteria.
CONCLUSION: The subgingival use of EPAP by means of an air-polishing device may be considered safe and may lead to comparable clinical and microbiologic outcomes to those obtained with SRP.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE: The subgingival use of EPAP appears to represent a promising modality for the removal of subgingival biofilm during SPT.