Hummam Rihawi, Rola Al Habashneh, Reem Abdel-Hafez, Majdi Alzoubi
{"title":"比较两种治疗方式在正畸治疗期间对牙龈增生的处理效果:随机临床试验。","authors":"Hummam Rihawi, Rola Al Habashneh, Reem Abdel-Hafez, Majdi Alzoubi","doi":"10.3290/j.qi.b5809024","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This clinical trial aimed to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of diode laser gingivectomy, conventional gingivectomy, and nonsurgical periodontal treatment (NSPT) in the management of gingival enlargement (GE) during orthodontic treatment.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>forty-five healthy, orthodontic patients with labial gingival enlargement on the 6 anterior teeth were selected and randomly assigned to one of the groups (Conventional, Laser, and NSPT). Clinical parameters including clinical crown length (CCL) , periodontal pocket depth (PPD), and vertical gingival overgrowth index (vGOi) were recorded at baseline, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months. Postoperative pain was evaluated at 1,3, and 7 days. Esthetic satisfaction and acceptance of the procedure were recorded on day 10 and repeated after 6 months.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Statistically significant results were obtained for mean reduction in PPD for conventional, laser, and NSPT groups (-1.43, -.1.75, and -0.9 mm, respectively; P < 0.001), CCL gain (1.45, 1.7, and 0.38 mm, respectively; P<0.001) and mean vGOi score (-1.14, -1.29 and -0.76, respectively; P<0.001) over 6 months. Both test groups showed greater statistically significant changes in clinical parameters over 6 months compared to NSPT (P<0.001). There was a gradual decrease in postoperative pain for all three groups over 7 days, with conventional group showing statistical difference in mean pain score on days 1 and 3 compared to other groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both conventional and laser gingivectomies were more effective in controlling enlargement over non-surgical periodontal treatment alone at 1, 3, and 6 months.</p><p><strong>Clinical significance: </strong>laser and conventional gingivectomies as adjunctive treatments achieved superior results when compared to NSPT alone in the treatment of GE and gingival inflammation during orthodontic treatment, with no significant clinical differences between the two treatments.</p>","PeriodicalId":20831,"journal":{"name":"Quintessence international","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison of two treatment modalities in the management of gingival enlargement during orthodontic treatment: a randomized clinical trial.\",\"authors\":\"Hummam Rihawi, Rola Al Habashneh, Reem Abdel-Hafez, Majdi Alzoubi\",\"doi\":\"10.3290/j.qi.b5809024\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>This clinical trial aimed to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of diode laser gingivectomy, conventional gingivectomy, and nonsurgical periodontal treatment (NSPT) in the management of gingival enlargement (GE) during orthodontic treatment.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>forty-five healthy, orthodontic patients with labial gingival enlargement on the 6 anterior teeth were selected and randomly assigned to one of the groups (Conventional, Laser, and NSPT). Clinical parameters including clinical crown length (CCL) , periodontal pocket depth (PPD), and vertical gingival overgrowth index (vGOi) were recorded at baseline, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months. Postoperative pain was evaluated at 1,3, and 7 days. Esthetic satisfaction and acceptance of the procedure were recorded on day 10 and repeated after 6 months.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Statistically significant results were obtained for mean reduction in PPD for conventional, laser, and NSPT groups (-1.43, -.1.75, and -0.9 mm, respectively; P < 0.001), CCL gain (1.45, 1.7, and 0.38 mm, respectively; P<0.001) and mean vGOi score (-1.14, -1.29 and -0.76, respectively; P<0.001) over 6 months. Both test groups showed greater statistically significant changes in clinical parameters over 6 months compared to NSPT (P<0.001). There was a gradual decrease in postoperative pain for all three groups over 7 days, with conventional group showing statistical difference in mean pain score on days 1 and 3 compared to other groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Both conventional and laser gingivectomies were more effective in controlling enlargement over non-surgical periodontal treatment alone at 1, 3, and 6 months.</p><p><strong>Clinical significance: </strong>laser and conventional gingivectomies as adjunctive treatments achieved superior results when compared to NSPT alone in the treatment of GE and gingival inflammation during orthodontic treatment, with no significant clinical differences between the two treatments.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20831,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Quintessence international\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Quintessence international\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3290/j.qi.b5809024\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Quintessence international","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3290/j.qi.b5809024","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
Comparison of two treatment modalities in the management of gingival enlargement during orthodontic treatment: a randomized clinical trial.
Objective: This clinical trial aimed to evaluate and compare the effectiveness of diode laser gingivectomy, conventional gingivectomy, and nonsurgical periodontal treatment (NSPT) in the management of gingival enlargement (GE) during orthodontic treatment.
Materials and methods: forty-five healthy, orthodontic patients with labial gingival enlargement on the 6 anterior teeth were selected and randomly assigned to one of the groups (Conventional, Laser, and NSPT). Clinical parameters including clinical crown length (CCL) , periodontal pocket depth (PPD), and vertical gingival overgrowth index (vGOi) were recorded at baseline, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months. Postoperative pain was evaluated at 1,3, and 7 days. Esthetic satisfaction and acceptance of the procedure were recorded on day 10 and repeated after 6 months.
Results: Statistically significant results were obtained for mean reduction in PPD for conventional, laser, and NSPT groups (-1.43, -.1.75, and -0.9 mm, respectively; P < 0.001), CCL gain (1.45, 1.7, and 0.38 mm, respectively; P<0.001) and mean vGOi score (-1.14, -1.29 and -0.76, respectively; P<0.001) over 6 months. Both test groups showed greater statistically significant changes in clinical parameters over 6 months compared to NSPT (P<0.001). There was a gradual decrease in postoperative pain for all three groups over 7 days, with conventional group showing statistical difference in mean pain score on days 1 and 3 compared to other groups.
Conclusion: Both conventional and laser gingivectomies were more effective in controlling enlargement over non-surgical periodontal treatment alone at 1, 3, and 6 months.
Clinical significance: laser and conventional gingivectomies as adjunctive treatments achieved superior results when compared to NSPT alone in the treatment of GE and gingival inflammation during orthodontic treatment, with no significant clinical differences between the two treatments.
期刊介绍:
QI has a new contemporary design but continues its time-honored tradition of serving the needs of the general practitioner with clinically relevant articles that are scientifically based. Dr Eli Eliav and his editorial board are dedicated to practitioners worldwide through the presentation of high-level research, useful clinical procedures, and educational short case reports and clinical notes. Rigorous but timely manuscript review is the first order of business in their quest to publish a high-quality selection of articles in the multiple specialties and disciplines that encompass dentistry.