No abstract

IntroductionThis study was performed to evaluate the clinical efficacy of using the Perio-Flow device (Electro Medical Systems, Nyon, Switzerland) adjunctively with mechanical instrumentation on periodontal parameters and halitosis.Materials and MethodsSixty patients who presented with a 4- to 6-mm probing pocket depth were recruited for the study. Patients were randomly assigned to scaling and root planing (SRP) or SRP + glycine powder air-polishing (GPAP). For both groups, the plaque index, gingival index, pocket depth, bleeding on probing, and clinical attachment level scores were recorded at baseline and 1 month. Volatile sulphur compounds (VSCs) were measured by a Halimeter (Interscan Corp., Chatsworth, CA, USA) at baseline, immediately after treatment, and at 7, 14, and 30 days.ResultsBoth groups showed significantly lower plaque index, gingival index, pocket depth, bleeding on probing, and clinical attachment level gain scores at 1 month than at baseline. No significant differences were found between the groups at any time point. The VSCs were significantly different at 1 month compared with baseline in both groups. However, the intergroup comparisons of VSCs were not statistically significant at any time point.ConclusionWithin the limits of this study, SRP is effective for treatment of periodontitis and halitosis. However, using GPAP adjunctively with mechanical instrumentation has no beneficial effects on halitosis or periodontal parameters.

No abstract

No abstract

Objectives:  This study was performed to investigate the efficacy of using glycine powder air-polishing (GPAP) or  antiseptics (CHX) adjunctively to scaling and  root planing (SRP) in the treatment of periodontitis. Methods: In this trial, ninety patients (between 28-80 years old) who had at least three teeth with 3 to 7- mm periodontal pockets, were ıncluded from the Department of Periodontology. The patients were divided into three groups randomly. In the control group ultrasonic instrumentation was performed with distilled water and hand instrumentation, in the CHX group ultrasonic instrumentation was performed with CHX and hand instrumentation, in the GPAP group in addition to SRP with ultrasonic performed with distilled water and hand instrumentation, GPAP was performed for 10 seconds per periodontal pocket using a Perio-Flow device.  All treatments were performed in one session.  Resuls: The scores of  plaque index(PI),gingival index (GI), probing depth (PD), bleeding on probing (BOP) and clinical attachement level (CAL) were decreased in all groups after 1 month and the results were statistically significant in intergoup comparisions. PI and CAL scores were statistically significant in intragroup comparisions in GPAP group. Altough GI, PD and BOP scores were lower in the GPAP group than CHX and control group, the differences after 1 month were not statistically significant.  Conclusion: Within the limits of this study, it was seen that SRP was effective alone in the treatment of periodontitis. However, using a CHX with ultrasonic devices has little beneficial effects on periodontal parameters when compared with control and GPAP groups. GPAP groups was found more effectively in PI and CAL scores.