3.8 Article

Comparative evaluation of co-enzyme Q10 and Melaleuca alternifolia as antioxidant gels in treatment of chronic periodontitis: A clinical study

期刊

CONTEMPORARY CLINICAL DENTISTRY
卷 7, 期 3, 页码 377-381

出版社

MEDKNOW PUBLICATIONS & MEDIA PVT LTD
DOI: 10.4103/0976-237X.188572

关键词

Coenzyme Q10; free radicals; periodontitis; reactive oxygen species; tea tree oil

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Conventional nonsurgical periodontal therapy has been proven to be an effective treatment for patients with chronic periodontitis. Coenzyme Q10 and tea tree oil (TTO) are known to have potential therapeutic benefits in chronic periodontitis. Aims: The aim of the study is to compare the efficacy of Coenzyme Q10 (Perio Q (R)) and tea tree oil (Melaleuca alternifolia) gel as an adjunct to scaling and root planing in the treatment of chronic periodontitis. Materials and Methods: Patients were divided equally into three groups: Group I (Control group): those receiving placebo gel + SRP, Group II (Test group I): those receiving Perio QTM gel + SRP, and Group III (Test group II): those receiving tea tree oil gel + SRP. A total of 15 patients with 45 sites were enrolled in the study. Clinical parameters evaluated were plaque index (PI), gingival bleeding index (GI), probing pocket depth (PPD), and clinical attachment level (CAL). Statistical Analysis Used: Paired t-test was applied using SPSS software. Results: Mean PPD reduction for Group I, Group II, and Group III was 0.50 +/- 0.2, 2.95 +/- 0.20, and 2.09 +/- 0.15, respectively. Mean CAL reduction for Group I, Group II, and Group III was 0.45 +/- 0.22, 2.33 +/- 0.04, and 2.28 +/- 0.09, respectively. Changes in mean PI scores for Group I, Group II, and Group III were 0.67 +/- 017, 1.00 +/- 0.11, and 1.08 +/- 0.05 and GBI scores were 0.92 +/- 0.29, 1.08 +/- 0.13, and 0.88 +/- 0.28, respectively. Conclusions: Coenzyme Q10 and tea tree oil gel proved to be effective in the treatment of chronic periodontitis.

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

3.8
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