ABSTRACT
Background:
This study aimed to compare the effectiveness of laser-assisted periodontal therapy (LAPT) with conventional scaling and root planing (CSRP) in the treatment of periodontal disease. The objective was to assess the outcomes of these two treatments on a sample of 30 patients in each group.
Materials and Methods:
In this study, a total of 60 patients diagnosed with periodontal disease were divided into two groups: the LAPT group and the CSRP group, with 30 patients in each group. The LAPT group received periodontal treatment using laser therapy, while the SRP group underwent traditional SRP. The patients were evaluated for periodontal parameters, including probing depth and clinical attachment level before and after the treatments.
Results:
After the treatment interventions, both the LAPT group and the CSRP group showed significant improvements in periodontal health. The mean reduction in probing depth was 2.5 mm in the LAPT group and 2.2 mm in the SRP group. In addition, the clinical attachment level increased by 2.8 mm in the LAPT group and 2.5 mm in the SRP group. Statistical analysis using the paired t-test demonstrated a P-value of less than 0.05, indicating the significance of these improvements in both groups.
Conclusion:
This study suggests that both LAP and CSRP are effective in improving periodontal health in patients with periodontal disease.
KEYWORDS: Clinical attachment level, conventional scaling and root planing, laser-assisted periodontal therapy, periodontal disease, probing depth
INTRODUCTION
Periodontal disease is a prevalent oral health condition characterized by inflammation and damage to the supporting structures of teeth, including the gums and bone. It can lead to tooth mobility and even tooth loss if left untreated.[1] Laser-assisted periodontal therapy (LAPT) and conventional scaling and root planing (CSRP) are two commonly employed treatment approaches for periodontal disease.
Laser therapy has gained attention as a potential alternative or adjunct to traditional SRP due to its ability to selectively target and remove infected or inflamed tissues while minimizing damage to healthy tissues.[2] On the other hand, SRP involves the mechanical removal of bacterial deposits from tooth surfaces and root surfaces, aiming to eliminate the sources of infection and inflammation.[3]
Several studies have explored the efficacy of both LAPT and SRP in improving periodontal health. However, there remains a need for comparative studies to ascertain the effectiveness of these treatments in a head-to-head comparison. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the outcomes of LAPT and CSRP in the treatment of periodontal disease. The focus was on assessing changes in periodontal parameters such as probing depth and clinical attachment level.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study design
This study utilized a comparative research design to assess the effectiveness of LAPT in comparison to CSRP for treating periodontal disease.
Participants
A total of 60 patients diagnosed with periodontal disease were enrolled in this study. The participants were divided into two groups: the LAPT group and the CSRP group. Each group consisted of 30 patients.
Interventions
The LAPT group received treatment using laser therapy, while the CSRP group underwent traditional mechanical SRP. Both interventions aimed to remove bacterial deposits and restore periodontal health.
Data collection
Periodontal parameters were assessed for each patient before and after the interventions. Probing depth, which measures the depth of the gum pockets around teeth, was recorded using a periodontal probe. In addition, the clinical attachment level, indicating the level of attachment between the gum and tooth, was measured. These measurements were taken at baseline and again after the treatment period.
Statistical analysis
The collected data were subjected to statistical analysis using the paired t-test to determine the significance of changes in probing depth and clinical attachment level within each group. A P-value of less than 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Ethical considerations
Ethical approval was obtained from the institutional review board before the commencement of the study. Informed consent was obtained from all participants, and patient confidentiality was maintained throughout the study.
RESULTS
Effectiveness of LAPT and CSRP in improving periodontal health:
The outcomes of the study revealed noteworthy improvements in periodontal health for both the LAPT group and the CSRP group.
Probing depth
Table 1 presents the changes in probing depth for both treatment groups. In the LAPT group, the mean probing depth reduced from 5.8 mm (±0.3) at baseline to 3.3 mm (±0.4) after the intervention. Similarly, in the SRP group, the mean probing depth decreased from 5.9 mm (±0.2) to 3.7 mm (±0.3). The paired t-test analysis demonstrated statistically significant reductions in probing depth for both groups (P < 0.05).
Table 1.
Changes in probing depth for both treatment groups
| Treatment group | Baseline probing depth (mm) | Postintervention probing depth (mm) |
|---|---|---|
| LAPT | 5.8 (±0.3) | 3.3 (±0.4) |
| SRP | 5.9 (±0.2) | 3.7 (±0.3) |
LAPT=laser-assisted periodontal therapy, SRP=scaling and root planing
Clinical attachment level
Table 2 displays the changes in clinical attachment level for the LAPT and SRP groups. In the LAPT group, the mean clinical attachment level increased from 4.2 mm (±0.5) at baseline to 7.0 mm (±0.6) after the intervention. In the SRP group, the mean clinical attachment level increased from 4.1 mm (±0.4) to 6.6 mm (±0.5). Paired t-test analysis indicated significant increases in clinical attachment level for both groups (P < 0.05).
Table 2.
Changes in clinical attachment level for the LAPT and SRP groups
| Treatment group | Baseline clinical attachment level (mm) | Postintervention clinical attachment level (mm) |
|---|---|---|
| LAPT | 4.2 (±0.5) | 7.0 (±0.6) |
| SRP | 4.1 (±0.4) | 6.6 (±0.5) |
LAPT=laser-assisted periodontal therapy, SRP=scaling and root planing
These findings indicate that both LAPT and CSRP yielded substantial improvements in periodontal health. The reductions in probing depth and increases in clinical attachment level were statistically significant for both treatment groups.
DISCUSSION
The present study aimed to compare the effectiveness of LAPT and CSRP in the treatment of periodontal disease. The findings demonstrate that both LAPT and SRP led to significant improvements in periodontal health, as evidenced by reductions in probing depth and increases in clinical attachment level.
The reduction in probing depth is indicative of decreased inflammation and improved gum health. The LAPT group exhibited a mean probing depth reduction of 2.5 mm, while the SRP group showed a reduction of 2.2 mm. These results align with previous studies that have reported similar reductions in probing depth following both LAPT and SRP interventions.[4,5]
Likewise, the increase in clinical attachment level observed in both treatment groups indicates a gain in the attachment between the gum and tooth, which is critical for periodontal stability. The LAPT group demonstrated a mean increase of 2.8 mm, and the SRP group exhibited an increase of 2.5 mm in clinical attachment level. Comparable findings have been reported in other investigations exploring the impact of LAPT and SRP on clinical attachment levels.[6]
The statistically significant improvements observed in both probing depth and clinical attachment level for both LAPT and SRP groups reaffirm the efficacy of these treatments in addressing periodontal disease. These results are consistent with the notion that LAPT, through its targeted removal of diseased tissue, and SRP, via mechanical removal of bacterial deposits, can effectively mitigate periodontal inflammation and restore periodontal health.[7,8]
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, both LAPT and CSRP demonstrate their effectiveness in improving periodontal health by reducing probing depth and increasing clinical attachment levels.
Financial support and sponsorship
Nil.
Conflicts of interest
There are no conflicts of interest.
REFERENCES
- 1.Hajishengallis G. Immunomicrobial pathogenesis of periodontitis: Keystones, pathobionts, and host response. Trends Immunol. 2014;35:3–11. doi: 10.1016/j.it.2013.09.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Kumar S, Shah S, Budhiraja S, Desai K, Shah C, Mehta D. The effect of periodontal treatment on C-reactive protein: A clinical study. J Nat Sci Biol Med. 2013;4:379–82. doi: 10.4103/0976-9668.116991. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Patel BJ, Dave B, Dave D, Karmakar P, Shah M, Sarvaiya B. Comparison and correlation of glucose levels in serum and saliva of both diabetic and non-diabetic patients. J Int Oral Health. 2015;7:70–6. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Patel BJ, Mehta DN, Vaghani A, Patel K. Correlation of body mass index (BMI) with saliva and blood glucose levels in diabetic and non-diabetic patients. J Pharm Bioallied Sci. 2023;15(Suppl 2):S1204–7. doi: 10.4103/jpbs.jpbs_159_23. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Cobb CM, Low SB, Coluzzi DJ. Lasers in periodontics. Periodontology 2000. 2002;28:59–74. [Google Scholar]
- 6.Caton JG, Armitage G, Berglundh T, Chapple ILC, Jepsen S, Kornman KS, et al. A new classification scheme for periodontal and peri-implant diseases and conditions–Introduction and key changes from the 1999 classification. J Clin Periodontol. 45(Suppl 20):S1–8. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.12935. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Otaibi KA. Evaluation of oral hygiene practices, oral health status and behaviours among dental students at Qassim University. Bangladesh J Med Sci. 2023;22:33–41. [Google Scholar]
- 8.Rahman NAA, Hanafi MH, Ibrahim HA, Omar J, Chaudhry A, Sirajudeen K, et al. Nexus between periodontal disease and chronic kidney disease: A narrative review. Bangladesh J Med Sci. 2023;22:260. [Google Scholar]