ClinicalTrials.gov
public full text
Public Domain
Treatment Of Shallow Periodontal Pockets 4-6mm Using AIRFLOW Prophylaxis Master Device With Erythritol vs Manual Scalers
Periodontitis is a chronic condition associated with the inflammatory destruction of the periodontal tissues ultimately leading to tooth loss. Clinically, it is identified by key features such as clinical attachment loss (CAL), bleeding upon probing (BOP), and an increase in probing pocket depth (PPD), and/or gingival recession. Periodontitis is mediated by polymicrobial dysbiosis with keystone pathogens affecting the virulence of the entire biofilm community. The removal of this biofilm and its retention factors is the ultimate goal of clinical treatment and oral measures applied. The elimination of the biofilm has traditionally been achieved with the use of either hand instruments or power driven devices. Promoting periodontal health or diminishing bacterial presence and calculus buildup on teeth can be accomplished with the same efficacy whether using manual scalers and curettes or ultrasonic scaling instruments. Both hand and ultrasonic instruments are characterized by being time-consuming and requiring technical skill, often causing patient discomfort and post-treatment pain, including hypersensitivity resulting from the loss of hard tissue when scaling the tooth surface. Ultrasonic instruments tend to leave a rougher surface behind compared to hand instruments. While effective the current techniques all have their disadvantages. The aim of this study is to evaluate changes in probing depth clinically, Bleeding on probing, Clinical attachment level, Plaque index, Calculus index, Patient pain/discomfort, Patient satisfaction, Cost effectiveness, Treatment time and Number of pockets closed after using AIRFLOW® Prophylaxis Master device with erythritol powder.
Conceptio Open Archive
Analyze & explore related research in Conceptio
Connect this record directly into your research workflow or AI agent. Explore citations across open repositories, query full text, and export structured proof bundles.
This document is indexed with metadata only: full text is not available in the archive for this record. Open the official source ↗
Related documents
- Comparison of the Efficacy of Oral Irrigator Versus Interdental Brushes in the Oral Hygiene of Patients With Gingivitis: a Randomised Study#846849
- Treatment of Residual Pockets in Periodontal Patients Using an Oscillating Chitosan Device#805717
- Efficacy of Subgingival Erythritol Air Polishing in Treatment of Periodontal Pockets#882735
- Pathogen Screening in OA Orthopaedic Surgical Patients#1128280
- Toothbrush in the Genesis and Prevention of Dental Recessions#893895
Record · ID 811785
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Retrieved via Conceptio: every document is proof-bundled with source, license, and retrieval metadata.
Bring this data into your agent: Connect via MCP or API · 20 free credits to start · no card required
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive
Read the Docs → · View CLI source on GitHub · Conceptio Open Knowledge Archive