Sonali Roy .; . Dhirendra K. Singh; . Balaji Manohar
Volume 12, Issue 11 , December 2022, , Pages 1-10
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Over the past few years, a growing body of evidence has allowed us to ascertainthat the initiation of periodontitis stems from the existence of oral microbial biofilm and ...
Read More
BACKGROUND: Over the past few years, a growing body of evidence has allowed us to ascertainthat the initiation of periodontitis stems from the existence of oral microbial biofilm and that thisrequires definitive treatment. Owing to its exceptional usability, affordability, and antibacterialactivity, the “diode laser” (DL) has increasingly become a popular and important tool in a dentist’sarmamentarium. However, there is a scarcity of scientific evidence on the utility and advantages ofusing “diode laser” in periodontal flap surgery. The study aimed to determine the efficacy of 940 nmdiode laser exposure in combination with conventional periodontal flap surgery for the treatment ofchronic periodontitis to evaluate postoperative discomfort and clinical parameters.MATERIALS AND METHODS: A total of 10 subjects (7 males and 3 females) with generalizedchronic periodontitis were recruited and completed the study without any dropouts. For this split‑mouthstudy, 40 sample sites with pocket probing depth (PPD) 5–7 mm post periodontal Phase I therapywere selected. The quadrants were randomly allocated to Groups A, B, C, and D using the fishbowl lottery method. Kirkland flap surgery with laser and modified Widman flap (MWF) with laserwere performed in Group A and C, respectively, while Kirkland flap surgery and MWF surgery wereperformed in Group B and Group D. Clinical parameters including visual analog scale (VAS) scoreand gingival inflammation were determined at 3rd and 7th day postoperatively while PPD, clinicalattachment level (CAL), and sulcus bleeding index (SBI) were recorded at baseline and 6 monthsfollowing treatment. Wilcoxon signed‑rank test and Kruskal–Wallis test were used for intra‑groupand inter‑group comparison of parameters, respectively.RESULTS: Statistically significant difference was attained with postoperative discomfort inlaser‑assisted groups on 1st and 3rd day postoperatively (P < 0.001). There was no significant differencein the proportion of subjects with gingival inflammation. A statistically significant reduction in meanPPD at 6 months postoperatively was seen among all study groups (P < 0.05) but the inter‑groupdifference was not statistically significant. SBI score reduced significantly from baseline to 6 monthsfollow‑up among all four groups (P < 0.05). However, we did not find the inter‑group difference tobe statistically non‑significant.CONCLUSION: Diode laser as an adjunct to the surgical procedure can demonstrate appreciablebenefits by increasing the CAL and minimizing the postoperative pain and the probing pocket, butsuch additional effects were not observed with gingival inflammation.