4.6 Article

Subgingival ultrasonic instrumentation of residual pockets irrigated with essential oils: a randomized controlled trial

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY
Volume 38, Issue 7, Pages 637-643

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2011.01725.x

Keywords

essential oils; periodontal disease; periodontal pocket; ultrasonic instrumentation

Funding

  1. Johnson and Johnson Consumer and Personal Products Worldwide - a division of Johnson and Johnson Consumer Companies Inc., Morris Plains, NJ, USA

Ask authors/readers for more resources

P>Aim To evaluate the clinical efficacy of subgingival ultrasonic instrumentation irrigated with essential oils (EOs) of residual periodontal pockets. Material and methods Sixty-four individuals with chronic periodontitis were invited to participate in this randomized, double-blind, parallel, and placebo-controlled clinical trial. All subjects received non-surgical periodontal therapy. After re-evaluation (baseline), residual pockets (pocket depth >= 5 mm) received test (ultrasonic instrumentation irrigated with EOs) or control therapy (ultrasonic instrumentation irrigated with negative control). Probing pocket depth (PPD), gingival recession (R), clinical attachment level (CAL), bleeding on probing (BOP), and plaque were assessed at baseline and after 4, 12, and 24 weeks. Differences between groups and changes over the course of time were analysed according to a generalized linear model. Results There was a significant reduction in PPD and BOP, as well as a significant CAL gain in the two groups (p < 0.001). Nevertheless, there were no differences between the groups at any time of the study. When only initially deep pockets (PPD >= 7 mm) were analysed, a significantly greater CAL gain (p=0.03) and PPD reduction (p=0.01) was observed in the test group. Conclusion The adjunctive use of EOs may promote significant CAL gain and PPD reduction in deep residual pockets.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available