Methods: Twenty-six selected subjects with moderate periodontitis were recruited from the University of Minnesota School of Dentistry. A randomized split mouth design was used to evaluate periodontal outcomes after sites within two quadrants of each subject were scaled and root planed with or without the use of the Perioscope™. Subjects were required to have at least four sites with pocket depths of 5-8 mm in each quadrant. Subjects were evaluated at baseline and at two post-scaling and root planing visits (6-8 weeks; 3 months). Paired t-tests were used to test whether there were within-patient differences in improvement between Perioscope™ and non-Perioscope™ sites. P-values less than 0.05 were declared to be statistically significant.
Results: Mean change in BOP from baseline to visit 2 was greater for Perioscope™ sites when compared to non-Perioscope™ sites (p < 0.036). Mean change in GI scores were also found to be greater for Perioscope™ sites when compared to non-Perioscope™ sites at visit 1 (p=0.006) and at visit 2 (p=0.0001). Reduction in pocket depth and clinical attachment loss was achieved for all sites but probing depth and clinical attachment level changes were found to be unrelated to the use of the Perioscope™. Mean probing depth (SD) was reduced from 5.29mm (0.4) to 3.55 mm (0.8) in the Perioscope™ sites and 5.39mm (0.5) to 3.83mm (1.2) in non-Perioscope™ sites.
Conclusions: The adjunctive use of the periodontal endoscope improved periodontal outcomes with respect to gingival inflammation and bleeding upon probing. The adjunctive use of the Perioscope™ was not found to be superior to traditional scaling and root planing with regard to pocket depth reduction and clinical attachment loss.
Keywords: Periodontal disease, Periodontal endoscopy and Technology
See more of: Periodontal Research - Therapy