Hägi Tobias T, Hofmänner Petra, Salvi Giovanni E, Ramseier Christoph A, Sculean Anton
Quintessence Int. 2013 Nov-Dec;44(10):753-61. doi: 10.3290/j.qi.a30606.
The aim of this prospective, randomized, controlled clinical study was to compare the clinical outcomes of the subgingival treatment with erythritol powder by means of an air-polishing (EPAP) device and of scaling and root planing (SRP) during supportive periodontal therapy (SPT).
40 patients enrolled in SPT were randomly assigned to two groups of equal size. Sites had to show signs of inflammation (bleeding on probing [BOP]-positive) and a probing pocket depth (PPD) of ≥ 4 mm, however, without presence of detectable subgingival calculus. During SPT, these sites were treated with EPAP or SRP, respectively. Full mouth and site-specific plaque indices, BOP, PPD, and clinical attachment level (CAL) were recorded at baseline (BL) and at 3 months, whereas the percentage of study sites positive for BOP (BOP+) was considered as primary outcome variable. Additionally, patient comfort using a visual analog scale (VAS) and the time needed to treat per site was evaluated.
At 3 months, mean BOP level measured 45.1% at test sites and 50.6% at control sites, respectively, without a statistically significant difference between the groups (P > .05). PPD and CAL slightly improved for both groups with comparable mean values at 3 months. Evaluation of patient tolerance showed statistically significantly better values among patients receiving the test treatment (mean VAS [0-10], 1.51) compared to SRP (mean VAS [0-10], 3.66; P = .0012). The treatment of test sites was set to 5 seconds per site. The treatment of control sites, on the other hand, lasted 85 seconds on average.
The new erythritol powder applied with an air-polishing device can be considered a promising modality for repeated instrumentation of residual pockets during SPT.
With regard to clinical outcomes during SPT, similar results can be expected irrespective of the two treatment approaches of hand instrumentation or subgingival application of erythritol powder with an air-polishing device in sites where only biofilm removal is required.
这项前瞻性、随机、对照临床研究的目的是比较在牙周支持治疗（SPT）期间，使用赤藓糖醇粉末通过空气抛光（EPAP）装置进行龈下治疗与龈下刮治和根面平整（SRP）的临床效果。
40名接受SPT的患者被随机分为两组，每组人数相等。所选部位必须有炎症迹象（探诊出血[BOP]阳性）且探诊袋深度（PPD）≥4mm，但无 detectable 龈下牙石。在SPT期间，这些部位分别接受EPAP或SRP治疗。在基线（BL）和3个月时记录全口和特定部位的菌斑指数、BOP、PPD和临床附着水平（CAL），而BOP阳性（BOP+）的研究部位百分比被视为主要结局变量。此外，使用视觉模拟量表（VAS）评估患者舒适度，并评估每个部位的治疗所需时间。
在3个月时，测试部位的平均BOP水平分别为45.1%，对照部位为50.6%，两组之间无统计学显著差异（P>.05）。两组的PPD和CAL均略有改善，3个月时平均值相当。对患者耐受性的评估显示，接受测试治疗的患者（平均VAS[0-10]，1.51）的数值在统计学上显著优于接受SRP治疗的患者（平均VAS[0-10]，3.66；P=.0012）。测试部位的治疗设定为每个部位5秒。另一方面，对照部位治疗平均持续85秒。
使用空气抛光装置应用新型赤藓糖醇粉末可被视为在SPT期间对残留牙周袋进行重复器械操作的一种有前景的方式。
关于SPT期间的临床效果，在仅需要去除生物膜的部位，无论采用手工器械治疗还是使用空气抛光装置龈下应用赤藓糖醇粉末这两种治疗方法中的哪一种，都可预期得到相似的结果。
