Clinical Comparison of Guided Biofilm Therapy and Scaling and Root Planing in the Active Phase of Periodontitis Management

TL;DR

This study compares two dental treatments for advanced periodontitis and finds they are equally effective in reducing gum pockets.

Contribution

The study provides a direct clinical comparison of Guided Biofilm Therapy and traditional Scaling and Root Planing for advanced periodontitis.

Findings

Both treatments achieved similar rates of pocket closure at 6 weeks and 3 months.

GBT and SRP showed comparable reductions in probing depth and treatment time.

No statistically significant differences were found between the two methods.

Abstract

Objective
 The aim of this randomized, controlled, split-mouth study was to compare full-mouth air polishing followed by ultrasonic debridement (known as Guided Biofilm Therapy [GBT]) versus traditional Scaling and Root Planing (SRP), in terms of pocket closure in patients with stages III and IV periodontitis.

Materials and Methods
 The patients underwent periodontal therapy in two sessions. At the beginning of the first session, quadrants I and IV and II and III were randomly assigned to GBT or SRP treatment. Periodontal parameters were collected at baseline, 6 weeks (T1), and 3 months (T2) after therapy. The primary outcome was the number of experimental sites (pocket probing depth [PPD] >4 and <10 mm) becoming closed pockets (PPD ≤ 4 mm bleeding on probing [BOP] negative) at T1 and T2. Secondary outcomes were PPD, recession, clinical attachment level, BOP, and plaque index variations at the experimental sites and treatment time.

Statistical Analysis
 A 10% difference in the primary outcome between the two protocols was set as the threshold to define inferiority/noninferiority of the test treatment. The primary outcome was modeled using a generalized estimating equation model to account for intrapatient measurement correlation. The estimates are reported as differences between groups' percentages (treatments or time points) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI). All analyses assumed a significance level of 5%.

Results
 A total of 32 patients were selected. Mean PPD (mm) reduced from 6.23 (6.06–6.40) to 3.33 (3.06–3.61) at T2 for GBT, and from 6.21 (6.04–6.38) to 3.32 (3.11–3.53) at T2 for SRP. Both treatments reached a comparable percentage of closed pockets at T1 (77.9% for GBT vs. 80.1% for SRP,
p
 = 0.235) and T2 (84.1% for GBT vs. 84.4% for SRP,
p
 = 0.878), with no statistically or clinically significant difference. GBT and traditional SRP with ultrasonic and hand instruments reach satisfactory clinical results in the active treatment of patients with stages III and IV periodontitis, with comparable rates of closed pockets and treatment time.

Conclusion
 GBT is a suitable option in the active phase of periodontitis management in patients with stages III and IV periodontitis.

Figures