6533b7defe1ef96bd12767cd

RESEARCH PRODUCT

Er:YAG laser treatment in supportive periodontal therapy.

Dominik MahlAndreas BraunMohammad BerakdarIngeborg JachmannPetra Ratka-krügerAnton SculeanAnton SculeanElyan Al-machotJürgen Schulte MöntingPia-merete Jervøe-stormDaniela Deimling

subject

Malemedicine.medical_specialtyPeriodontal DebridementGingival and periodontal pocketmedicine.medical_treatmentTreatment outcomeDental PlaqueDentistryLasers Solid-Statelaw.inventionHigh-Energy Shock WavesSonicationRandomized controlled triallawGram-Negative BacteriaPeriodontal Attachment LossmedicineHumansPeriodontal PocketProspective StudiesLow-Level Light TherapyTooth RootProspective cohort studybusiness.industryFollow up studiesAttachment levelMiddle AgedBacterial LoadSurgeryTreatment OutcomeDebridement (dental)Chronic PeriodontitisPeriodonticsFemalebusinessGingival HemorrhageEr:YAG laserFollow-Up Studies

description

To assess clinical and microbiological outcomes of an Er:YAG laser in comparison with sonic debridement in the treatment of persistent periodontal pockets in a prospective randomized controlled multicentre study design.A total of 78 patients in supportive periodontal therapy with two residual pockets were included, 58 were available for the whole follow-up period. Root surfaces were instrumented either with a sonic scaler (Sonicflex(®) 2003 L) or with an Er:YAG laser (KEY Laser(®) 3). Clinical attachment levels (CAL), Probing depths (PD), Plaque control record (PCR) and Bleeding on probing (BOP) were assessed at baseline, 13 and 26 weeks after treatment. In addition, microbiological analysis was performed employing a DNA diagnostic test kit (micro-IDent(®) Plus).Probing depths and CAL were significantly reduced in both groups over time (p0.05), without significant differences between the groups (p0.05). BOP frequency values decreased significantly within both groups (p0.05), with no difference between the laser and the sonic treatment (p0.05). PCR frequency values did not change during the observation period (p0.05). Microbiological analysis failed to expose any significant difference based on treatment group or period.Employing both sonic and laser treatment procedures during supportive periodontal care, similar clinical and microbiological outcomes can be expected.

10.1111/j.1600-051x.2012.01857.xhttps://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22276957