Discipline of Periodontics, School of Dentistry, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
J Clin Periodontol. 2022 Jun;49(6):547-555. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.13623. Epub 2022 Apr 22.
To assess the efficacy of the adjunct use of a subgingival erythritol powder air-polishing device (EPAP) in comparison to conventional subgingival instrumentation alone during initial non-surgical periodontal therapy.
Twenty-one patients with generalized Stages 2 and 3 grade B periodontitis were included in this single centre, single blinded, split-mouth, randomized clinical trial. Teeth on the control side were treated with conventional hand and ultrasonic instrumentation, while those on the contralateral test side was treated using EPAP as adjunct to conventional subgingival instrumentation with hand and ultrasonic instruments. Three months after initial instrumentation, persisting pockets of ≥4 mm were re-treated, in both control and test sides, again with the respective treatment approach-subgingival instrumentation alone on control, and subgingival instrumentation + EPAP on test side. Clinical parameters such as probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing, and relative attachment level were recorded at baseline and 3 and 6 months following the initial instrumentation. Subgingival plaque samples were collected at baseline, immediately post surgery, as well as at 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months after initial instrumentation.
In the test group after 6 months, a significantly larger number of initially deep pockets (PPD ≥ 5.5 mm) were reduced to shallow (PPD ≤ 3.4 mm), and a larger attachment gain was observed. No statistically significant microbiological differences could be found between test and control group.
The results of the present study indicate that the adjunct use of subgingival airflow therapy with EPAP during initial non-surgical periodontal therapy might be beneficial in initially deep pockets (PPD ≥ 5.5 mm).
评估在初始非手术牙周治疗中，与单独使用传统牙周器械相比，使用龈下赤藓糖醇粉末空气抛光设备（EPAP）作为辅助手段的疗效。
本研究为单中心、单盲、劈裂口腔、随机临床试验，共纳入 21 名患有广泛的 2 期和 3 期 B 级牙周炎的患者。对照组的牙齿采用传统手工和超声器械进行治疗，而对侧试验组的牙齿则采用 EPAP 作为辅助手段，与手工和超声器械联合使用进行龈下器械治疗。初始器械治疗 3 个月后，再次对所有留存的≥4mm 深袋（包括对照组和试验组）进行治疗，采用相同的治疗方法：对照组采用单独的龈下器械治疗，试验组采用龈下器械+EPAP 治疗。在初始器械治疗后，分别于基线、3 个月和 6 个月记录临床参数，如探诊袋深度（PPD）、探诊出血和相对附着水平。在基线、术后即刻以及初始器械治疗后 1 周、1 个月、3 个月和 6 个月收集龈下菌斑样本。
在试验组中，6 个月后，更多的初始深袋（PPD≥5.5mm）减少到浅袋（PPD≤3.4mm），并且观察到更大的附着水平增加。但在试验组和对照组之间并未发现统计学上显著的微生物学差异。
本研究结果表明，在初始非手术牙周治疗中，使用龈下气流治疗联合 EPAP 作为辅助手段可能对初始深袋（PPD≥5.5mm）有益。
