Published in

Wiley, Oral Diseases, 2023

DOI: 10.1111/odi.14829

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Ozonized gels vs chlorhexidine in non‐surgical periodontal treatment: A randomized clinical trial

This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.

Full text: Unavailable

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Orange circle
Postprint: archiving restricted
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

AbstractObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of newly introduced ozonated gels compared with conventional chlorhexidine gel in the home management of periodontal patients.Materials and Methods30 patients with bilateral periodontal disease (severity I, complexity II) were enrolled (split‐mouth study design). After nonsurgical mechanical periodontal debridement, the teeth were randomly divided into two groups: teeth in the Control group were treated with a chlorhexidine‐based gel to aid oral hygiene maneuvers for 2 weeks after the first visit, while teeth in the Test group were treated in the same way with ozone‐based gels. After the baseline assessment, the follow‐up included assessments at 1, 2, and 6 months. The variables evaluated were clinical attachment loss (CAL), probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BoP), plaque control record (PCR), recession (R), and tooth mobility (TM).ResultsFor CAL, PPD, BoP, and PCR, significant intragroup differences were found for both groups (p < 0.05), in contrast to intergroup differences (p > 0.05). No significant differences were found for R and TM.ConclusionNonsurgical mechanical periodontal debridement with adjunctive use of ozone and chlorhexidine was found to be effective in periodontal treatment. Ozone could be suggested as an alternative to chlorhexidine.