Air‐polishing followed by ultrasonic calculus removal for the treatment of gingivitis: A 12‐month, split‐mouth randomized controlled clinical trial

• Published in: International journal of dental hygiene Vol. 22; no. 4; pp. 949 - 958
• Main Authors: Mensi, M., Scotti, E., Sordillo, A., Dalè, M., Calza, S.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: England Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01.11.2024
• Subjects: Adult; air‐polishing; Biofilms; Debridement; dental biofilm; Dental Calculus - therapy; Dental Plaque Index; Dental Polishing - methods; Erythritol - therapeutic use; Female; Gingivitis; Gingivitis - prevention & control; Gingivitis - therapy; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; oral hygiene; Patient Satisfaction; Patients; Periodontal Index; plaque disclosing; Plaque index; Powders; Rubber; Treatment Outcome; Ultrasonic Therapy - methods; Young Adult; air‐polishing; dental biofilm; oral hygiene; plaque disclosing; gingivitis
• ISSN: 1601-5029; 1601-5037; 1601-5037
• DOI: 10.1111/idh.12812

Objective To evaluate the advantages of a novel protocol involving full‐mouth erythritol‐powder air‐polishing followed by ultrasonic calculus removal in the maintenance of patients treated for gingivitis, with a focus on time and comfort. Methods Systemically healthy patients with gingivitis were selected. Following a split‐mouth design, quadrants 1–4 and 2–3 were randomly allocated to receive air‐polishing followed by ultrasonic calculus removal following a protocol known as Guided Biofilm Therapy (GBT) or traditional full‐mouth ultrasonic debridement followed by polishing with a rubber cup and prophylactic paste (US + P). Bleeding on probing (BoP) and the plaque index (PI) were collected at baseline (T0), 2 weeks (T1), 4 weeks (T2), 3 months (T3), and 6 months (T4) and 12 months (T5). Following the same randomization, prophylactic therapy was provided at 3 months (T3) and 6 months (T4). Clinical parameters, treatment time and patient comfort and satisfaction were evaluated. Results A total of 41 patients were selected, 39 completed the study. The clinical parameters were clinically satisfactory for both treatments at every time. At 4 months after treatment, GBT maintained significantly lower BoP and PI. GBT protocol required a significantly lower treatment time, especially at T3 and T4, when it saved 24.5% and 25.1% of the time, respectively. Both treatments were rated positively by most patients. However, GBT was perceived as more comfortable, and a higher number of patients preferred it. Conclusion No significant difference was observed between GBT and conventional ultrasonic debridement and rubber cup polishing in terms of BoP and PI levels. The GBT protocol allowed less time expenditure and higher patients' perceived comfort.