Treatment of chronic periodontitis by non-surgical periodontal therapy in association with diode laser compared to conventional non-surgical therapy

Abstract

Mechanical surface treatment and removal of the above and subgingival biofilm (Tartar ablation; SRP) are consideredthe most suitable tools for the treatment of periodontal inflammatory diseases, with the aim of destroying bacterialbioflim, reducing bacteria, and slowing down recolonization by pathogenic microorganisms.Often, however, the only S&RP are not enough, as there are patients who are experiencing relapses.Recently, laser therapy has been suggested as a potential tool to improve the outcome of periodontal non-surgicaltreatment.The objective of the following study was to evaluate the clinical healing of periodontal pockets treated with mechanical therapy, scaling and root planing, and diode laser application, compared to that obtained with non-surgical mechanical therapy alone.The study was designed as a randomized controlled clinical trial. Patients in the control group (13 patients) underwent conventional non-surgical therapy only, while patients in the test group (17 patients) were associated withconventional non-surgical treatment, a laser irradiation session.At baseline and after 6 months, the parameters of probing depth (PD), bleeding on probing (BOP), gingival recession(REC) were assessedThe main variable of this study was the PD (probing depth)FMPS and FMBS at follow-up improved in both groups. The FMPS baseline test group 32.59 ± 6.74 - follow up 12.00± 3.16.The baseline of the control group showed 33.00 ± 9.55, the follow up 13.15 ± 4.85 The FMBS baseline test groupfound 24.29 ± 5.01 while at follow 9.65 ± 2.69. The baseline control group 30.31 ± 7.74, Follow up 11.08 ± 2.33.There is a statistical significance. (P.VALUE 0.0001)There were no significant differences between the groups in terms of PD, CAL and BOP at baseline and at follow-up.PD Test group 4,89±1,58 3,95±0,85 0,0001Control group 5,02±1,57 4,01±0,86CAL (mm)Test group 0,89±2,29 0,77±1,91Control group 0,28±1,38 0,24±1,14REC Test group 0,19±0,49 0,19±0,51Control group 0,06±0,29 0,57±029BOP Test group 51,2% 23,5%Control group 54,0% 20,9%The results showed differences in both baseline and follow-up for REC.Test group 0,19±0,49 0,19±0,51Control group 0,06±0,29 0,57±029In intra-group analyzes, there are differences between baseline and follow-up for all values, except for REC in thecontrol group.The diode laser can be used as an appropriate device for periodontal treatments, but it can offer additional andsignificant benefits if used according to appropriate protocols and parameters, and especially if associated withnon-surgical, manual and ultrasound periodontal instrumentation, always site-specific , as it is a tool that does notreplace traditional methods.