4.6 Article

Full-mouth ultrasonic debridement versus quadrant scaling and root planing as an initial approach in the treatment of chronic periodontitis

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PERIODONTOLOGY
Volume 32, Issue 8, Pages 851-859

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-051X.2005.00776.x

Keywords

clinical; debridement; multicentre; periodontitis; randomized-controlled trial; root planing; scaling; ultrasonic

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Aim: To evaluate the clinical efficacy of (i) a single session of full-mouth ultrasonic debridement'' (Fm-UD) as an initial periodontal treatment approach and (ii) re-instrumentation of periodontal pockets not properly responding to initial subgingival instrumentation. Methods: Forty-one patients, having on the average 35 periodontal sites with probing pocket depth (PPD) >= 5 mm, were randomly assigned to two different treatment protocols following stratification for smoking : a single session of full-mouth subgingival instrumentation using a piezoceramic ultrasonic device (EMS PiezonMaster 400, A+PerioSlim tips) with water coolant (Fm-UD) or quadrant scaling/root planing (Q-SRP) with hand instruments. At 3 months, all sites with remaining PPD >= 5mm were subjected to repeated debridement with either the ultrasonic device or hand instruments. Plaque, PPD, relative attachment level (RAL) and bleeding following pocket probing (BoP) were assessed at baseline, 3 and 6 months. Primary efficacy variables were percentage of closed pockets'' (PPD <= 4 mm), and changes in BoP, PPD and RAL. Results: The percentage of closed pockets'' was 58% at 3 months for the Fm-UD approach and 66% for the Q-SRP approach (p > 0.05). Both treatment groups showed a mean reduction in PPD of 1.8 mm, while the mean RAL gain amounted to 1.3 mm for Fm-UD and 1.2 mm for Q-SRP (p > 0.05). The re-treatment at 3 months resulted in a further mean PPD reduction of 0.4 mm and RAL gain of 0.3 mm at 6 months, independent of the use of ultrasonic or hand instruments. The efficiency of the initial treatment phase (time used for instrumentation/ number of pockets closed) was significantly higher for the Fm-UD than the Q-SRP approach: 3.3 versus 8.8 min. per closed pocket (p < 0.01). The efficiency of the re-treatment session at 3 months was 11.5 min. for ultrasonic and 12.6 min. for hand instrumentation (p > 0.05). Conclusion: The results demonstrated that a single session of Fm-UD is a justified initial treatment approach that offers tangible benefits for the chronic periodontitis patient.

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