Abstract

INTRODUCTION: Gingival and periodontal diseases are still the most common prevalent oral diseases affecting a community/individual people and can lead to irreversible consequences, both local (bone loss, tooth mobility etc. ) and systemic (Cardiac Disease etc.)AIM: To compare the efficacy of NBF gingival gel alone and as an adjunct to conventional therapy in patients with gingivitisMATERIALS AND METHOD: This randomized study design (parallel arm study design) consisted of 7 patients with 21 quadrants and having a score 2 (moderate gingivitis) & 3 (severe gingivitis) based upon the gingival score given by Loe & Silness (1964). All the subjects were evaluated by two parameters i.e. gingival index [Loe & Silness (1964)] and Papillary Bleeding Index [Muhleman (1977)] at baseline and after one month of rendering treatment. Following random allocation (flip of coin), the first Group was given conventional therapy [Scaling and Root Planing(SRP)] followed by NBF gingival gel application, while the 2nd Group was given NBF gel application alone and the 3rd Group was given conventional therapy (SRP) alone. Statistical analysis was done using SPSS version 19.0 using paired t‑test as well as the Wilcoxon Signed Rank test.RESULTS: After follow up, the highest percentage of mean scores of gingival index decreased among all the groups was seen in group 1 (38.15±5.46), followed by group 3(32.54±7.58) and group 2(18.91±7.62). Similarly, in the Papillary Bleeding Index, the highest percentage reduction was seen in group 1 (82.30±2.39), followed by group 3(53.54±6.02) and group 2(31.71±4.34). All observed values were significant with p≤05.CONCLUSION: NBF gel seems to provide to boost the immunity of the gingiva and periodontium, and when used as an adjunct to conventional therapy (SRP) can benefit the patient immensely.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call