The effectiveness of photodynamic therapy as a complementary therapy to mechanical instrumentation on residual periodontal pocket clinical parameters: A clinical split-mouth test

Evaluation of Antimicrobial Photodynamic Therapy as an Adjuvant in Periodontal Treatment in Individual with Down Syndrome

“…No statistically significant differences concerning the Plaque Index at both evaluation moments were observed, which differs from results found in research with HIV [17], smokers [18], and diabetic patients [22].…”

“…BOP is considered an important parameter for assessing the progression of periodontal disease [18,19].…”

“…Although no statistically significant intergroup reduction was observed, results are similar to those presented by Balata et al [21], who observed intragroup differences but reported that the association between conventional treatment and aPDT does not present additional benefits to conventional therapy. Thus, as BOP has been considered the most consistent indicator of the current activity of periodontal disease, changes in mean Probing Depth values should not be emphasized, especially when evaluating limited sample sizes and short follow-up periods [18].…”

Clinical and Microbiological Evaluation of Local Doxycycline and Antimicrobial Photodynamic Therapy during Supportive Periodontal Therapy: A Randomized Clinical Trial

“…Comparable clinical outcomes in terms of PD reduction and CAL gain to those obtained in the PDT group, were also reported by other authors evaluating the efficacy of this treatment modality in patients enrolled in SPT [7,[31][32][33][34][35]. Even though not all these studies had comparable initial clinical parameters (higher initial PD values) [7,31,32,34,35] with those in our study, and used slightly different treatment protocols (i.e., scaling and root planing with hand curettes [9] as opposed to SD with ultrasonics, repeated PDT sessions more than twice [31,34,36], or no additional mechanical biofilm removal in the PDT group [32]), the changes in PD or CAL were reaching up to 0.8 mm, similar to our results.…”

“…Additionally, discrepancies in treatment protocols may also explain the various clinical results: Chondros et al excluded from the analyses sites with clinical deterioration during the experimental period [7]; Kolbe et al used for subgingival instrumentation both curettes and ultrasonic and utilized a different type of laser [9]; and Lulic et al and Petelin et al used PDT more than twice [31,34]. Nonetheless, despite these discrepancies for the reported PD, CAL, and BOP values, several of these authors reported no statistically significant adjunctive benefits for the PDT as compared to mechanical debridement [9,32,33,35,37] which is in line with our results. Other authors reported significant differences favoring PDT only for the parameter BOP, without any significant benefits for PD or CAL [7,31], while other authors reported significant improvements in all parameters favoring PDT treatment [6,36].…”