Gingival Curettage: Study Comparing a Laser Treatment to Hand Instruments
Summary
In the journal article, Gingival Curettage: Study Comparing a Laser Treatment to Hand Instruments, a study was conducted to compare differences in nonsurgical periodontal treatment between a diode laser and subgingival curettage with traditional hand instruments. There were 18 patients selected for the study between 25-65 years of age who had to meet specific requirements. Each patient required the diagnosis of mild to moderate chronic periodontitis, medical history showing they had good general health, no third molars, at least 20 natural teeth, average plaque level less than or equal to 1, and evidence of bleeding and gingivitis. Each quadrant was randomly selected for treatment using either an 810-nm diode laser or to gingival curettage with the use of traditional hand instruments. In the study the quadrants selected for hand instrumentation were termed “control group” and those selected for laser treatment were termed “test group”. All patients received treatment from the same operator and were given oral hygiene instructions at the initial baseline appointment. At the time of treatment, no anesthetic was administered and each patient received hand and ultrasonic scaling to remove plaque biofilm and calculus deposits from all teeth. Those selected for tradition instrumentation had removal of inflamed epithelial lining with the use of Gracey curettes from Hu-Friedy and those selected for laser treatment had epithelial lining removed by an Odyssey diode laser. After treatment, each quadrant was flooded with 1.0% Chlorhexidine gluconate solution and the average time required for treatment per patient was noted. Clinical data was collected at the baseline appointment and 1 week and 4 weeks after treatment and was recorded by a blind examiner. Data included plaque index, gingival index, sulcus bleeding index, pocket depth, clinical attachment level, and visual analog scale. Results of the study showed that there were no complications observed with any patient from both treatment methods and that there were significant reductions in pocket depth, significant gain in clinical attachment level. The study discussed the use of either the diode laser or traditional hand instruments led to significant improvements
of all clinical guidelines along with oral hygiene education which suggested the importance for the reinforcement of proper oral hygiene instruction. Patients involved in the study stated that they preferred the use of the laser over hand instrumentation due to the discomfort associated with instrumentation. Patients also stated that they felt less anxiety with the laser treatment over hand instrumentation. It was suggested that laser therapy be used in conjunction to traditional instrumentation as it helps with accelerated wound healing, reduction of inflammation, and support healing in the periodontal pocket by the elimination of bacteria.
Reflection:
This information is important to me as a future dental hygienist, because I will need to be knowlegable about what types of treatments there are to offer to my patients. Also, it is important to be able to explain to a patient that either treatment method whether it be hand instrumentation or the use of a laser are both equally effective ways for gingival curettage. It is very important to offer our patients options for treatment.
References
Lin, J., Bi, L., Wang, L., Song, Y., Ma, W., Jensen,
S., & Cao, D. (2011). Gingival curettage study comparing a laser treatment
to hand instruments. Lasers In Medical Science, 26(1), 7-11.
doi:10.1007/s10103-009-0732-x
[Untitled image of gingival curettage]. Retrieved February 7, 2013 from http://staceyrdh.weebly.com/pico.html
Serenitydental9. (2012, July 26). LANAP[Video file].
Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xgFphyUFM0
Additional Information
Photo from Google Images
Laser Treatment Video from Youtube
Journal Article from Ebsco Host
In the journal article, Gingival Curettage: Study Comparing a Laser Treatment to Hand Instruments, a study was conducted to compare differences in nonsurgical periodontal treatment between a diode laser and subgingival curettage with traditional hand instruments. There were 18 patients selected for the study between 25-65 years of age who had to meet specific requirements. Each patient required the diagnosis of mild to moderate chronic periodontitis, medical history showing they had good general health, no third molars, at least 20 natural teeth, average plaque level less than or equal to 1, and evidence of bleeding and gingivitis. Each quadrant was randomly selected for treatment using either an 810-nm diode laser or to gingival curettage with the use of traditional hand instruments. In the study the quadrants selected for hand instrumentation were termed “control group” and those selected for laser treatment were termed “test group”. All patients received treatment from the same operator and were given oral hygiene instructions at the initial baseline appointment. At the time of treatment, no anesthetic was administered and each patient received hand and ultrasonic scaling to remove plaque biofilm and calculus deposits from all teeth. Those selected for tradition instrumentation had removal of inflamed epithelial lining with the use of Gracey curettes from Hu-Friedy and those selected for laser treatment had epithelial lining removed by an Odyssey diode laser. After treatment, each quadrant was flooded with 1.0% Chlorhexidine gluconate solution and the average time required for treatment per patient was noted. Clinical data was collected at the baseline appointment and 1 week and 4 weeks after treatment and was recorded by a blind examiner. Data included plaque index, gingival index, sulcus bleeding index, pocket depth, clinical attachment level, and visual analog scale. Results of the study showed that there were no complications observed with any patient from both treatment methods and that there were significant reductions in pocket depth, significant gain in clinical attachment level. The study discussed the use of either the diode laser or traditional hand instruments led to significant improvements
of all clinical guidelines along with oral hygiene education which suggested the importance for the reinforcement of proper oral hygiene instruction. Patients involved in the study stated that they preferred the use of the laser over hand instrumentation due to the discomfort associated with instrumentation. Patients also stated that they felt less anxiety with the laser treatment over hand instrumentation. It was suggested that laser therapy be used in conjunction to traditional instrumentation as it helps with accelerated wound healing, reduction of inflammation, and support healing in the periodontal pocket by the elimination of bacteria.
Reflection:
This information is important to me as a future dental hygienist, because I will need to be knowlegable about what types of treatments there are to offer to my patients. Also, it is important to be able to explain to a patient that either treatment method whether it be hand instrumentation or the use of a laser are both equally effective ways for gingival curettage. It is very important to offer our patients options for treatment.
References
Lin, J., Bi, L., Wang, L., Song, Y., Ma, W., Jensen,
S., & Cao, D. (2011). Gingival curettage study comparing a laser treatment
to hand instruments. Lasers In Medical Science, 26(1), 7-11.
doi:10.1007/s10103-009-0732-x
[Untitled image of gingival curettage]. Retrieved February 7, 2013 from http://staceyrdh.weebly.com/pico.html
Serenitydental9. (2012, July 26). LANAP[Video file].
Retrieved from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xgFphyUFM0
Additional Information
Photo from Google Images
Laser Treatment Video from Youtube
Journal Article from Ebsco Host