RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Different periodontal treatment methods (quadrant-wise debridement, scaling and root planing (Q-SRP), full-mouth scaling (FMS), full-mouth disinfection (FMD), and FMD with adjuvant erythritol air-polishing (FMDAP)) were applied in periodontitis patients (stage III/IV). The study objective (substudy of ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03509233) was to compare the impact of treatments on subgingival colonization. METHODS: Forty patients were randomized to the treatment groups. Periodontal parameters and subgingival colonization were evaluated at baseline and 3 and 6 months after treatment. RESULTS: Positive changes in clinical parameters were recorded in every treatment group during the 3-month follow-up period, but did not always continue. In three groups, specific bacteria decreased after 3 months; however, this was associated with a renewed increase after 6 months (FMS: Porphyromonas gingivalis; FMD: Eubacterium nodatum, Prevotella dentalis; and FMDAP: uncultured Prevotella sp.). CONCLUSIONS: The benefit of all clinical treatments measured after 3 months was associated with a decrease in pathogenic bacteria in the FMS, FMD, and FMDAP groups. However, after 6 months, we observed further improvement or some stagnation in clinical outcomes accompanied by deterioration of the microbiological profile. Investigating the subgingival microbiota might help appraise successful periodontal treatment and implement individualized therapy.
RESUMEN
AIM: To evaluate the clinical efficacy of full-mouth scaling (FMS), full-mouth disinfection (FMD), and FMD with adjuvant erythritol air-polishing (FMDAP) compared to quadrant-wise debridement (Q-SRP) in patients with periodontitis stage III/IV. METHODS: In this four-arm parallel, prospective, randomized, controlled multi-centre study, changes of pocket probing depths (PPDs), clinical attachment level (CAL), bleeding on probing (BOP), and proportion of closed pockets (PPD ≤4 mm without BOP) were evaluated at baseline and after 3 and 6 months. RESULTS: From 190 randomly participating patients, 172 were included in the final analysis. All groups showed significant (p < .05) improvements in all clinical parameters over 3 and 6 months. During the study period, FMDAP showed significantly higher reductions of mean PPD in teeth with moderate (PPD 4-6 mm) and deep (PPD > 6 mm) pockets and significantly increased proportions of pocket closure than Q-SRP. Patients treated with FMD had significantly greater PPD reduction in deep pockets and a higher percentage of pocket closure after 3 months but not after 6 months compared to Q-SRP. CAL and BOP changes did not significantly differ among all groups. Efficiency of treatment (time effort to gain one closed pocket) was significantly higher for FMDAP, FMD, and FMS compared to Q-SRP (6.3, 8.5, 9.5 vs. 17.8 min per closed pocket; p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: All treatment modalities were effective, without significant differences between full-mouth approaches. FMDAP showed improved clinical outcomes over Q-SRP for moderate and deep pockets after 6 months. Full-mouth protocols were more time-efficient than conventional Q-SRP. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: The trial was registered in a clinical trial database (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03509233).
