 |
Publisher: Peytchinski Publishing Ltd.
ISSN: 1312-773X (Online)
Issue: 2019, vol. 25, issue2
Subject Area: Dental Medicine
-
DOI: 10.5272/jimab.2019252.2521
Published online: 22 April 2019
Original article
J of IMAB. 2019 Apr-Jun;25(2):2521-2525
CLINICAL EFFICACY AND SUBJECTIVE PAIN EVALUATION OF TWO ULTRASONIC SYSTEMS IN NON-SURGICAL PERIODONTAL TREATMENT OF MODERATELY ADVANCED CHRONIC PERIODONTITIS
Elena Firkova
, Blagovesta Yaneva,
Department of Periodontology and Oral Diseases, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Medical University – Plovdiv, Bulgaria.
ABSTRACT:
Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy and perception of pain between VectorTM -system and a conventional P5 ultrasonic system in the non-surgical treatment of chronic periodontitis.
Materials and methods: 45 patients with moderate periodontitis were treated by
Vector™-system and a conventional P5 ultrasonic device in a split-mouth design clinical trial. At baseline and 6 weeks after non-surgical phase of treatment was completed, plaque index, bleeding on probing, pocket probing depth and clinical attachment levels were measured and recorded. A visual analogue scale was used to evaluate the patients’ perceived pain immediately after scaling and root planning.
Results: At 6 weeks of evaluation, all sites showed an improvement in clinical parameters. No statistically significant differences in pocket probing depth and bleeding on probing was observed between the groups. However the Vector™-system – treated group showed a greater improvement in reduction of pocket depth than P5 device. Patients treated with Vector™-system (mean=22.5 mm, SD=7.53 mm) experienced almost 80% less pain compared with the pain, experienced by the other conventional ultrasonic device (mean=37.16 mm, SD=11.30 mm).
Conclusion: During initial periodontal treatment for the patients with moderate periodontitis, Vector™-system could achieve a comparable clinical efficacy in means of reduction of major clinical parameters and reduced pain sensation compared to the conventional ultrasonic device instrumentation.
Keywords: Vector™-system, P5 ultrasonic device, pain, non-surgical periodontal treatment,
- Download FULL TEXT /PDF 497 KB/
Please cite this article as: Firkova E, Yaneva B. Clinical efficacy and subjective pain evaluation of two ultrasonic systems in non-surgical periodontal treatment of moderately advanced chronic periodontitis. J of IMAB. 2019 Apr-Jun;25(2):2521-2525. DOI: 10.5272/jimab.2019252.2521
Correspondence to: Assoc. Prof. Elena Firkova, PhD, DDS., Department of Periodontology and Oral Diseases, Faculty of Dental Medicine, Medical University – Plovdiv, Bulgaria; E-mail: elenafirkova@yahoo.com
REFERENCES:
1. Sanz I, Alonso B, Carasol M, Herrera D, Sanz M. Nonsurgical treatment of periodontitis. J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2012 Sep;12(3 Suppl):76-86. [PubMed] [Crossref]
2. de Jongh A, Stouthard ME. Anxiety about dental hygienist treatment. Community Dent Oral Epidemiol 1993: 21(2):91-95 [PubMed].
3.Trenter SC, Walmsley AD. Ultrasonic dental sealer: associated hazards. J Clin Periodontol 2003;30(2): 95-101 [PubMed].
4. Schwarz I. The vectorTM system: an ultrasonic device for periodontal treatment. Perio 2004;1(2):181-185.
5. Firkova E, Vladimirov St. [Scanning electron microscopic study of root surfaces after manual and ultrasonic debridement]. Zabolekarski pregled 2004, 86(1):31-38. [in Bulgarian]
6.Slot DE, Koster TJ, Paraskevas S., van der Weijden GA. The effect of the Vector scaler system on human teeth: a systematic review. Int J Dent Hyg 2008;6(3):154-65 [PubMed].
7.Guentsch A, Preshaw PM. The use of a linear oscillating device in periodontal treatment: a review.J Clin Periodontol 2008;35(6):514-24 [PubMed].
8. Arpağ OF, Dağ, İzol BI, Cimitay G, Uysal E. Effects of vector ultrasonic system debridement andconventional instrumentation on the levels of TNF-α in gingivalcrevicular fluid of patients with chronic periodontitis. Adv Clin Exp Med. 2017;26(9):1419–1424 [PubMed].
9.Silness J, Loe H. Periodontal disease in pregnancy. Correlation between oral hygiene and periodontal condition. Acta Odontol Scand 1964; 22:121-135 [PubMed].
10. Sculean A, Schwarz F, Berakdar M, Romanos GE, Brecx M, Willershausen B. et al. Non-surgical periodontal treatment with a new ultrasonic device (Vector™-ultrasomc system) or hand instruments. J Clin Periodontol 2004 Jun;31(6):428-33 [PubMed].
11. Rupf S, Brader I, Vonderlind D, Kannengiesser S, Eschrich K, Roeder I, et al. In vitro, clinical, and microbiological evaluation of a linear oscillating device for scaling and root planing. J Periodontol. 2005 Nov;76(11):1942-9 [PubMed] [Crossref].
12. Nirola A, Batra P, Kaur Sh. Comparison of nonsurgical periodontal therapy with hand scaler, conventional ultrasonic scaler, and vector™ ultrasonic system in patients with generalized chronic periodontitis. Indian J Dent Sci. 2016; 8(4):226- 232 [Crossref]
13. Matthews DC, McCulloch CA. Evaluating patient perceptions as short-term outcomes of periodontal treatment: a comparison of surgical and non-surgical therapy. J Periodontol l993;64(10): 990-997 [PubMed].
14. Müller S, Huber H, Goebel G, Wimmer G, Kapferer-Seebacher I. Pain perception during debridement of hypersensitive teeth elicited by two ultrasonic scalers. Clin Oral Investig. 2017 Jun;21(5):1559-1564. [PubMed] [Crossref]
15. Hoffman A, Marshall RI, Bartold PM. Use of the Vector™ scaling unit in supportive periodontal therapy: a subjective patient evaluation. J Periodontal Research 2005; 32(10):1089-1093 [PubMed].
16. Kocher T, Fanghanel J, Schwahn C, Ruhling A. A new ultrasonic device in maintenance therapy: perception of pain and clinical efficacy. J Clin Periodontol 2005:32(4): 425-429 [PubMed].
Received: 25 October 2018
Published online: 22 April 2019