Faculty of Medicine and Medical Center, Department of Operative Dentistry and Periodontology, University of Freiburg, Hugstetter Str. 55, 79106, Freiburg, Germany.
Northern Hessia Implant Center, Industriestraße 17A, 34369, Hofgeismar, Germany.
BMC Oral Health. 2022 Mar 13;22(1):70. doi: 10.1186/s12903-022-02109-1.
This study investigated clinical parameters using a new air-polishing device compared to sonic scaling for subgingival biofilm removal during supportive periodontal therapy. The aim was to evaluate noninferiority of air-polishing compared to sonic scaling in deeper periodontal pockets with respect to pocket depth (PD).
In 44 participants, 2 single-rooted teeth [(PD) ≥ 5 mm] were treated using a split-mouth design. While a new air polishing device with a conical shaped tip was used for the experimental group, sonic scaling was performed in the control group. PD, clinical attachment level (CAL), and bleeding on probing (BOP) were recorded at baseline, (T0) after 3 months (T1) and 6 months (T2). Pain perception was rated using a visual analog scale (VAS; 0 = no pain, 100 = maximum pain).
PD and CAL decreased significantly for both groups, while no intergroup differences were found (PD [mean, mm] control T0 5.96, T2 4.75; experimental T0 5.96, T2 4.8; intergroup p = 0.998; CAL [mean, mm] control T0 7.38, T2 5.84; experimental T0 7.28, T2 6.34; intergroup p = 0.368). For BOP, no intergroup differences were found from T0 to T2 (reduction control 42.5%; experimental 46.5% p = 0.398). Pain perception was significantly lower for air polishing (VAS [mean, mm] control 28.8, experimental 12.56; p = 0.006).
None of the two treatment procedures showed inferior clinical effects with regard to PD, CAL and BOP with air polishing being more comfortable to patients. Trial registration The study was registered in an international trial register on August 14/08/2019, before the start of recruitment (German Clinical Trial Register number DRKS00017844).
本研究使用新型空气抛光设备对支持性牙周治疗期间龈下生物膜进行清除，比较了其与超声洁治的临床参数。目的是评估空气抛光在较深牙周袋（PD≥5mm）中与超声洁治相比的非劣效性，以 PD 为评估指标。
在 44 名参与者中，2 颗单根牙（PD≥5mm）采用分侧设计。实验组使用新型锥形尖端空气抛光设备，对照组采用超声洁治。PD、临床附着水平（CAL）和探诊出血（BOP）于基线（T0）、3 个月（T1）和 6 个月（T2）时记录。疼痛感知采用视觉模拟评分（VAS；0=无痛，100=最大疼痛）进行评估。
两组 PD 和 CAL 均显著降低，但组间无差异（PD[均值，mm]对照组 T0 5.96，T2 4.75；实验组 T0 5.96，T2 4.8；组间 p=0.998；CAL[均值，mm]对照组 T0 7.38，T2 5.84；实验组 T0 7.28，T2 6.34；组间 p=0.368）。BOP 方面，T0 至 T2 时两组间无差异（对照组减少 42.5%；实验组减少 46.5%，p=0.398）。空气抛光时疼痛感知明显较低（VAS[均值，mm]对照组 28.8，实验组 12.56；p=0.006）。
两种治疗方法在 PD、CAL 和 BOP 方面均无劣势，且空气抛光对患者更舒适。
该研究于 2019 年 8 月 14 日在国际试验注册处注册，在招募开始之前（德国临床试验注册处编号 DRKS00017844）。
