Quadrant root planing versus same-day full-mouth root planing. I. Clinical findings

Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that same-day full-mouth scaling and root planing (FM-SRP) resulted in greater clinical improvement compared to quadrant scaling and root planing (Q-SRP) in chronic periodontitis patients over a period of 6 months.

Material and methods: Forty patients were recruited into this study. Subjects were randomised into two groups. The FM-SRP group received full-mouth scaling and root planing completed within the same day, while the Q-SRP group received quadrant root planing at 2-weekly intervals over four consecutive sessions. Whole-mouth clinical measurements were recorded with a manual periodontal probe at baseline (BAS) and at reassessment 1 (R1) (approximately 6 weeks after the completion of therapy), and at reassessment 2 (R2) (6 months after the initiation of therapy). Selected site analyses were performed on the deepest site in each quadrant before and after therapy (R1 and R2) and clinical indices were recorded with an electronic pressure sensitive probe. In addition, during the active phase of treatment clinical data were collected at 2-weekly intervals from the remaining untreated quadrants in the Q-SRP group only.

Results: Both therapies resulted in significant improvements in all clinical indices both at R1 and R2. A continuous clinical improvement was seen for both treatment groups during the experimental period, which reached peak levels at 6 months (DeltaPD=1.8 mm, DeltaCAL=1.1 mm, p<0.001; PD: pocket depth; CAL: clinical attachment level). The selected-site analysis revealed no significant differences in any clinical index between the two treatment groups at R2 (DeltaPD=2.8 mm, DeltaRAL=1.1 mm; RAL: relative attachment level). At the selected sites, the analysis of the deep pockets (>7 mm) showed a significantly greater gain in RAL for the FM-SRP group compared to the Q-SRP group at R2 (p<0.05). The results of this analysis however, should be interpreted with care due to the small number of deep pockets. Data from the Q-SRP group provided an insight into how treated and untreated quadrants responded during the initiation of plaque control measures. There were significant reductions in PD, suppuration (SUP), modified gingival index (MGI) and plaque index (PI) in the remaining untreated quadrants in the Q-SRP group during the initial phase of treatment (p<0.05), while minimum changes in RALs and bleeding on probing (BOP) occurred. Nevertheless, the improvement in PD was clearly inferior to that seen after scaling and root planing.

Conclusion: Following both therapeutic modalities, there were marked clinical improvements at both R1 and R2 (6 months) from baseline. The current study, in contrast to previous findings, failed to show that FM-SRP is a more efficacious periodontal treatment modality compared to Q-SRP. However, both modalities are efficacious and the clinician should select the treatment modality based on practical considerations related to patient preference and clinical workload.