Clinical outcomes of using erythritol powder by means of air polishing with ultrasonic debridement in the treatment of initial periodontal pockets in hand of dental students: A split‐mouth, randomized, comparative, controlled study. Part I

• Published in: International journal of dental hygiene 2021-08, Vol.19 (3), p.262-272
• Main Authors: Albonni, Hala, Alseirafi, Walaa, Tekleh, Hiba, Abo Orabi, Feras, Alhaj, Mouaaid, Almasri, Dima, Hamadh, Hussen, Sawaf, Hazem
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: assessment; Bleeding; Clinical outcomes; Debridement; Dentistry; Erythritol; erythritol air polishing; Gingival index; Gingivitis; Gum disease; Mouth; Pain; Patients; Periodontitis; Plaque index; Powder; scaling and root planning; Statistical analysis
• ISSN: 1601-5029; 1601-5037
• DOI: 10.1111/idh.12519

Objective The purpose of this trial was to evaluate the clinical efficacy and patient acceptance of using the erythritol powder air polishing with mechanical debridement in non‐surgical periodontal therapy. Methods The trial was conducted as a split‐mouth design study of 6 weeks’ duration including 13 patients with gingivitis and stage I periodontitis with grade A. Each patient received ultrasonic debridement and polishing (UD+P) on one side, whereas the contralateral side was treated by erythritol powder air polishing and ultrasonic instrumentation (EPAP+UI) when required. Clinical variables were as follows: papillary bleeding index (PBI), bleeding on probing (BOP), full mouth plaque index (FMPI), calculus index (CI), modified gingival index (MGI), probing pocket depth (PPD), the time needed and rate the pain for each group. Results The FMPI, MGI, CI, PBL and BOP parameters improved significantly for both treatment procedures; however, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups at any of the examinations intervals, except for MGI and CI which showed a significant reduction at 2 weeks compared with baseline. PPD was significantly decreased in EPAP+UI group. Perceived pain intensity was lower for EPAP+UI group than UD+P group without any significant difference during follow‐up periods between the two groups. Seven patients favoured air polishing. The treatment's time was (24.92 ± 9.260 and 34.08 ± 9.106) minutes for the test and control side, respectively. Conclusion This study generally revealed no significant differences in clinical outcomes between two groups for gingivitis and stage I periodontitis treatment. However, EPAP+UI had higher patient's preference and less time‐consuming compared with UD+P.