Airflowing as an adjunctive treatment for periodontitis: A randomized controlled trial

Abstract

Backgound: The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to assess clinical and patient-reported outcomes of subgingival instrumentation (SI) with adjunctive use of erythritol airflowing (EAF) compared to SI alone in the treatment of periodontitis.

Methods: Twenty-six participants with Stage III/IV periodontitis requiring nonsurgical periodontal treatment were randomly allocated into two treatment groups: SI with EAF or SI alone. Clinical parameters of percentage of probing pocket depths (PPDs) of ≥5 mm, full mouth bleeding and plaque scores (FMBS and FMPS), and PPD values were recorded at baseline, and at 3 and 6 months posttreatment. A visual analogue scale was used to evaluate postoperative participants' perception of pain, swelling, bleeding, bruising, and root sensitivity. The impact of periodontal treatment on quality of life was assessed using the General Oral Health Assessment Index (GOHAI) at six months.

Results: A total of 26 participants with Stage III/IV periodontitis completed the 6-month follow-up. SI with or without EAF resulted in a statistically significant reductions in the FMBS, FMPS, PPDs, and percentage of PPDs of ≥5 mm at the 3- and 6-month follow-up visits. There was no statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups for any time interval. Participants receiving SI/EAF exhibited a higher reduction in FMBS compared to those in SI alone group at 3 (SI/EAF: 19.4 ± 11.9, SI alone: 30.1 ± 20.5; P = 0.12) and 6 months (SI/EAF: 14.3 ± 9.6, SI alone: 24.5 ± 18.2; P = 0.09). A lower percentage of sites with deep PPDs (≥5 mm) was also noted amongst participants in the SI/EAF group compared to SI alone at 3 months (SI/EAF: 14.3 ± 14.1, SI alone: 19.2 ± 20.3; P = 0.48) and 6 months (SI/EAF: 8.3 ± 10.0, SI alone: 15.4 ± 17.4; P = 0.22). Patient-reported outcomes showed no significant differences between the two treatment groups, except in the psychosocial domain of the GOHAI at 6 months favoring the SI/EAF group (P = 0.03).

Conclusions: Within the limitations of the study, the adjunctive use of EAF in addition to SI in the treatment of Stage III/IV periodontitis did not result in a significant improvement in clinical parameters. Limited improvement in the QoL with EAF could be achieved.

Keywords: patient‐reported outcome measures; periodontal debridement; periodontitis; randomized controlled trial.