Vouros Ioannis, Antonoglou Georgios N, Anoixiadou Styliani, Kalfas Sotirios
Department of Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Implant Biology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece.
Int J Dent Hyg. 2022 May;20(2):381-390. doi: 10.1111/idh.12533. Epub 2021 Jul 19.
To evaluate the effectiveness of biofilm removal of a treatment protocol combining an air-abrasive device using erythritol powder (AIRFLOW®) and an ultrasonic piezon instrumentation (Guided Biofilm Therapy/GBT) compared with the conventional mechanical approach (Scaling and Root Planing/SRP) during supportive periodontal treatment (SPT).
Fifty patients, scheduled for supportive periodontal treatment at the Department of Preventive Dentistry, Periodontology and Implant Biology of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki were randomly assigned to either a GBT (group A: 24 participants) or a SRP (Group B: 26 participants) treatment protocol. Therapeutic interventions and clinical measurements were performed at baseline and repeated at 6 weeks. Oral hygiene instructions were reinforced at each visit. A questionnaire was handed to the participants for evaluation of patient perception of both utilized approaches.
At 6 weeks, the two groups showed statistically significant reduction in plaque score and in gingival bleeding index compared with baseline. GBT required approximately 15% less chair-time than SRP with a mean difference of 5.1 min, which was statically significant (p = 0.049). Patient perception was more favourable for GBT than SRP.
Biofilm removal using erythritol AIRFLOW® and ultrasonic piezo-electric instruments (GBT) can be considered equally efficient compared with the conventional SRP. Moreover, GBT seemed to require shorter treatment time and to exhibit a more favourable patient perception than the conventional approach.
评估在支持性牙周治疗(SPT)期间,将使用赤藓糖醇粉末的空气研磨设备(AIRFLOW®)和超声压电器械(引导性生物膜治疗/GBT)相结合的治疗方案与传统机械方法(龈上洁治和根面平整/SRP)相比,去除生物膜的有效性。
50名计划在塞萨洛尼基亚里士多德大学预防牙科、牙周病学和种植生物学系接受支持性牙周治疗的患者被随机分配到GBT组(A组:24名参与者)或SRP组(B组:26名参与者)进行治疗方案。在基线时进行治疗干预和临床测量,并在6周时重复进行。每次就诊时都加强口腔卫生指导。向参与者发放问卷,以评估患者对两种使用方法的看法。
在6周时,与基线相比,两组的菌斑评分和牙龈出血指数均有统计学意义的降低。GBT所需的椅旁时间比SRP少约15%,平均差异为5.1分钟,具有统计学意义(p = 0.049)。患者对GBT的看法比SRP更有利。
与传统的SRP相比,使用赤藓糖醇AIRFLOW®和超声压电器械(GBT)去除生物膜可被认为同样有效。此外,GBT似乎需要更短的治疗时间,并且与传统方法相比,患者的看法更有利。