Comparative Evaluation of Conventional Therapy With and Without Use of Diode Laser (DL) in the Treatment of Chronic Generalized Periodontitis: A Clinico-Microbiological Study.

Introduction: Chronic periodontitis is caused by a persistent and expanding interaction between a subgingival pathogenic microbial biofilm and the host immune system. The host's reaction to local factors directly influences the inflammation and bone loss that result from these interactions. Depending on variables like the severity of soft tissue damage and bone loss, treatment options can range from nonsurgical to surgical. Nonsurgical treatments are frequently used as the first-line therapy for inflammatory periodontal disease. In fact, careful scaling and root planing (SRP), a nonsurgical treatment, has been extensively studied and shown to be a highly predictable and effective therapy. According to recent research, using a diode laser (DL) in addition to standard SRP may reduce bacterial count and reinfection significantly. Laser therapy could be helpful in treating periodontal disease because of its antibacterial and detoxifying effects. The goal of this study is to investigate whether using a DL in addition to conventional flap surgery enhances patient outcomes for those with chronic generalized periodontitis.

Materials And Methods: The 12 participants in this split-mouth trial with chronic generalized periodontitis were the main subject of the study. All of them had probing pocket depths (PPDs) of at least 5 mm after the initial phase of treatment. Each patient in the control group (Group A) and test group (Group B) received a conventional flap after being randomly assigned to one of the groups. Group B underwent a conventional flap with a 980 nm DL, whereas those in Group A did not receive any DL therapy. Periodontal pockets in both groups were evaluated at baseline, 45 days, and 90 days after a sub-gingival plaque test. Quantitative real-time polymerase chain reactions were used to examine the presence of red complex organisms in the plaque sample.

Results: From baseline to 45 days and then to 90 days, clinical attachment loss (CAL), plaque index (PI), and gingival index (GI) all significantly decreased. However, results from 45 days to 90 days were statistically non-significant, with the exception of the GI, where Group B results were significantly different from Group A results from 45 days to 90 days. On the other hand, when a DL was combined with conventional flap surgery in the test group, the quantity of red complex bacteria was significantly decreased.

Conclusion: When DL was used in conjunction with conventional flap surgery, the results showed that CAL, PI, and GI were all significantly reduced while the quantity of red complex bacteria was also significantly decreased.