4.6 Article

Er:YAG laser treatment in supportive periodontal therapy

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY
Volume 39, Issue 5, Pages 483-489

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2012.01857.x

Keywords

attachment level; Er:YAG laser; microbiology; supportive periodontal treatment

Funding

  1. New Working Group Periodontology (NAgP, Heusenstamm, Germany)
  2. KaVo (Biberach/Riss, Germany)
  3. Hain LifeScience (Nehren, Germany)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To assess clinical and microbiological outcomes of an Er:YAG laser in comparison with sonic debridement in the treatment of persistent periodontal pockets in a prospective randomized controlled multicentre study design. Material and Methods: A total of 78 patients in supportive periodontal therapy with two residual pockets were included, 58 were available for the whole follow-up period. Root surfaces were instrumented either with a sonic scaler (Sonicflex (R) 2003 L) or with an Er: YAG laser (KEY Laser (R) 3). Clinical attachment levels (CAL), Probing depths (PD), Plaque control record (PCR) and Bleeding on probing (BOP) were assessed at baseline, 13 and 26 weeks after treatment. In addition, microbiological analysis was performed employing a DNA diagnostic test kit (micro-IDent (R) Plus). Results: Probing depths and CAL were significantly reduced in both groups over time (p < 0.05), without significant differences between the groups (p > 0.05). BOP frequency values decreased significantly within both groups (p < 0.05), with no difference between the laser and the sonic treatment (p > 0.05). PCR frequency values did not change during the observation period (p > 0.05). Microbiological analysis failed to expose any significant difference based on treatment group or period. Conclusion: Employing both sonic and laser treatment procedures during supportive periodontal care, similar clinical and microbiological outcomes can be expected.

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