International Journal of Dentistry
3
0.0
3
∗
∗
∗
–0.1
2
–0.2
–0.3
1
∗
–0.4
∗
0
–0.5
1
2 Months
3
1
2 Months
3
Sterify Gel + SRP SRP only
Sterify Gel + SRP SRP only
ð a Þ
ð b Þ
3
∗
∗
∗
2
1
0
1
2 Months
3
Sterify Gel + SRP SRP only
ð c Þ F IGURE 1: (a) Change in pocket depth (PD) in millimeters at 1, 2, and 3 months vs. pretreatment conditions ( n = 34). (b) Change in gingival recess in millimeters at 1, 2, and 3 months vs. pretreatment conditions ( n = 34). (c) Change in clinical attachment level (CAL) in millimeters at 1, 2, and 3 months vs. pretreatment conditions ( n = 34). Error bars show the standard error of the mean (SEM). ∗ p < 0 : 05.
3. Results 3.1. Changes in Pocket Depth, Gingival Recession, and Clinical Attachment Level after Treatment with Sterify Gel Compared to SRP Alone. Treatment with Sterify Gel in conjunction with SRP consistently demonstrated a noteworthy improvement in PD, surpassing twofold enhancement compared to the con- trol group throughout all follow-up intervals (Figure 1(a)). The mean change in PD compared to the pretreatment condition was 2.06 mm at 1 month, 2.35 mm at 2 months, and 2.21 mm at 3 months in the treatment group; conversely, the mean change in PD compared to the pretreatment condition in the control group was 1.09 mm at 1 month, 1.36 mm at 2 months, and 1.18 mm at 3 months. Furthermore, minimal gingival recession was observed in all patients. However, patients treated with SRP only had a signi fi cant worsening compared to those treated with Sterify Gel at 2 and 3 months (Figure 1(b)). Consistently with PD and gingival recession, signi fi cant advancements were also
periodontal bacterial contamination were assessed through periodontitis DNA test based on semiquantitative qPCR tech- nique (LabOral Diagnostics, Houten, Netherlands) at baseline and 3 months after treatment. Samples were collected by gently inserting the sterile probes (provided within the test kit) into the periodontal pockets for a few seconds. 2.5. Data Analysis. The authors used Graph Prism 9 to ana- lyze the data. The differences in evaluation parameters recorded at different time points between the control and treatment groups were analyzed using ANOVA both for intratreatment differences in the different timings per treatment and intertreatment differences between the different treatments at the same timings. Intertreatment differences were also tested with nonparametric Wilcoxon test. 2.6. Ethics. The study received approval from the Comitato Etico dell ’ Insubria on 9 August 2022 and the Italian Ministry of Health on 2 December 2022.
Made with FlippingBook Annual report