Clinical and microbiological effects of the supplementary use of an erythritol powder air-polishing device in non-surgical periodontal therapy: a randomized clinical trial

PURPOSE: This study was undertaken to evaluate the clinical and microbiological effects of an erythritol powder air-polishing device (EPAP) as a supplement to scaling and root planing (SRP) therapy in patients with moderate chronic periodontitis. METHODS: Clinical and microbiological evaluations were performed at 21 sites treated with SRP (control) and 21 sites treated with SRP+EPAP (test). All examinations were performed before treatment, 1 month after treatment, and 3 months after treatment. RESULTS: There were no significant clinical differences between the test group and the control group. Microbiological analysis revealed that the relative expression level of Porphyromonas gingivalis was significantly lower in the test group than in the control group at 1 month after treatment. Clinical and microbiological results showed improvements at 1 month compared to baseline; in contrast, the results at 3 months after treatment were worse than those at 1 month after treatment. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, both SRP and SRP+EPAP were clinically and microbiologically effective as non-surgical periodontal treatments. In particular, the SRP+EPAP group showed an antimicrobial effect on P. gingivalis, a keystone bacterium associated with the onset of chronic periodontitis, in a short-term period. Periodic periodontal therapy, at intervals of at least every 3 months, is important for sustaining the microbiological effects of this treatment.

Clinical effects of additional use of erythritol powder air polishing device on non-surgical periodontal treatment in moderate chronic periodontitis

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the clinical effects of erythritol powder air polishing device (EPAP) in addition to scaling and root planing (SRP) in non-surgical periodontal treatment in moderate chronic periodontitis patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Clinical evaluation was performed at 21 sites treated with SRP (control) and 21 sites treated with the addition of SRP+EPAP (test). All examinations were performed before treatment, 1 month after treatment, and 3 months after treatment. Depth of the periodontal pocket, gingival recession, clinical attachment level, plaque index, and bleeding of probing were measured as clinical parameters. RESULTS: In both test and control groups, there was a significant decrease in the depth of the periodontal pocket, plaque index, bleeding of probing, increased gingival recession, and gain of clinical attachment level at 1 month and 3 months after treatment. However, there was no significant clinical difference between the test group and the control group. Clinical result was improved after 1 month compared to the baseline; in contrast, results at 3 months after treatment were worse than at 1 month after treatment. CONCLUSION: In this study, we cannot suggest that SRP + EPAP is clinically more effective than SRP alone as non-surgical periodontal treatments. Periodic periodontal therapy, at intervals of at least every three months, is important for sustaining effects of this treatment.