4.4 Article

Local adjunct effect of antimicrobial photodynamic therapy for the treatment of chronic periodontitis in type 2 diabetics: split-mouth double-blind randomized controlled clinical trial

期刊

LASERS IN MEDICAL SCIENCE
卷 31, 期 8, 页码 1633-1640

出版社

SPRINGER LONDON LTD
DOI: 10.1007/s10103-016-2030-8

关键词

Diabetes mellitus; Chronic periodontitis; Periodontal pocket; Antimicrobial therapy; Photodynamic therapy; Low-level laser therapy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Diabetes has become a global epidemic. Its complications can have a significant impact on quality of life, longevity, and public health costs. The presence of diabetes might impair the prognosis of periodontal treatments due to its negative influence on wound healing. Antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) is a local approach that can promote bacterial decontamination in periodontal pockets. The aim of this study was to investigate the local effect of adjunct aPDT to ultrasonic periodontal debridement (UPD) and compare it to UD only for the treatment of chronic periodontitis in type 2 diabetic patients. Twenty type 2 diabetic patients with moderate to severe generalized chronic periodontitis were selected. Two periodontal pockets with probing depth (PD) and clinical attachment level (CAL) aeyen5 mm received UPD only (UPD group) or UPD plus adjunct aPDT (UPD + aPDT group). Periodontal clinical measures were collected and compared at baseline and 30, 90, and 180 days. After 180 days of follow-up, there were statistically significant reductions in PD from 5.75 +/- 0.91 to 3.47 +/- 0.97 mm in the UPD group and from 6.15 +/- 1.27 to 3.71 +/- 1.63 mm in the UPD + aPDT group. However, intergroup analysis did not reveal statistically significant differences in any of the evaluated clinical parameters (p > 0.05). The adjunct application of aPDT to UPD did not present additional benefits for the treatment of chronic periodontitis in type 2 diabetic patients. The ClinicalTrials.gov identifier of the present study is NCT02627534.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据