Scholarlink

Aim <p>In non-surgical periodontal therapy, periodontal curettes are used for scaling and root planing, which is considered a standard approach for the management of mild to moderate periodontitis. This prospective clinical study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of two distinct non-surgical periodontal therapy modalities in patients diagnosed with Stage 1 and Stage 2 periodontitis.</p> Method <p>The study comprised 80 nonsmoking, systemically healthy volunteers. Patients were divided into two groups at random: the Guided Biofilm Therapy (GBT) group and the conventional therapy group (CT), which included Gracey curette and an ultrasonic device. All patients were assessed before and one and three months after therapy for clinical characteristics like pocket depth (PD), Gingival Index (GI), Plaque Index (PI), Bleeding on Probing Index (BOP), and the levels of IL-1β, IL-10, TNF-α, and MMP-8 in gingival crevicular fluid (GCF).</p> Results <p>Over time, both treatment approaches significantly improved all indicators (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). At 1 and 3 months, the GBT group showed a more substantial decrease in GI, PI, and IL-1β levels than the standard treatment group (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.05). However, no significant differences were found between the groups in TNF-α, IL-10, and MMP-8 levels.</p> Conclusion <p>The information gathered shows that guided biofilm therapy is a viable choice, especially for managing plaque and lowering the inflammatory response. These findings emphasize the value of contemporary methods for treating periodontal disease that incorporate patient motivation.</p> Clinical relevance <p>To date, no studies have evaluated the impact of current subgingival debridement techniques on immunological biomarkers in gingival crevicular fluid. Our findings suggest that guided biofilm therapy may be more effective in reducing gingival inflammation compared to conventional approaches. Studies involving more participants and longer follow-up durations are necessary to support these conclusions.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Analysis of the impact of contemporary subgingival debridement techniques on immunological biomarkers in gingival crevicular fluid

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2026年6月17日

查看全文
  • Safak Necati Donertas,
  • Selcen Ozcan Bulut

摘要

Aim

In non-surgical periodontal therapy, periodontal curettes are used for scaling and root planing, which is considered a standard approach for the management of mild to moderate periodontitis. This prospective clinical study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of two distinct non-surgical periodontal therapy modalities in patients diagnosed with Stage 1 and Stage 2 periodontitis.

Method

The study comprised 80 nonsmoking, systemically healthy volunteers. Patients were divided into two groups at random: the Guided Biofilm Therapy (GBT) group and the conventional therapy group (CT), which included Gracey curette and an ultrasonic device. All patients were assessed before and one and three months after therapy for clinical characteristics like pocket depth (PD), Gingival Index (GI), Plaque Index (PI), Bleeding on Probing Index (BOP), and the levels of IL-1β, IL-10, TNF-α, and MMP-8 in gingival crevicular fluid (GCF).

Results

Over time, both treatment approaches significantly improved all indicators (p < 0.001). At 1 and 3 months, the GBT group showed a more substantial decrease in GI, PI, and IL-1β levels than the standard treatment group (p < 0.05). However, no significant differences were found between the groups in TNF-α, IL-10, and MMP-8 levels.

Conclusion

The information gathered shows that guided biofilm therapy is a viable choice, especially for managing plaque and lowering the inflammatory response. These findings emphasize the value of contemporary methods for treating periodontal disease that incorporate patient motivation.

Clinical relevance

To date, no studies have evaluated the impact of current subgingival debridement techniques on immunological biomarkers in gingival crevicular fluid. Our findings suggest that guided biofilm therapy may be more effective in reducing gingival inflammation compared to conventional approaches. Studies involving more participants and longer follow-up durations are necessary to support these conclusions.