Clinical Evaluation of the Use of Locally Delivered Chlorhexidine in Periodontal Maintenance Therapy

• Autores: Antonio Wilson Sallum, Enilson Antonio Sallum, Ivana Ferreira Gomes Rodrigues, Luciana Machion, Marcio Zaffalon Casati, Francisco Humberto Nociti, Sergio de Toledo Toledo
• Localización: Journal of periodontology, ISSN 0022-3492, Vol. 78, Nº. 4, 2007, págs. 624-628
• Idioma: inglés
• Texto completo no disponible (Saber más ...)
• Resumen

  • Clinical Evaluation of the Use of Locally Delivered Chlorhexidine in Periodontal Maintenance Therapy Ivana Ferreira Gomes Rodrigues,* Luciana Machion,† Marcio Zafalon Casati,* Francisco Humberto Nociti Jr.,* Sergio de Toledo,* Antonio Wilson Sallum,* and Enilson Antonio Sallum* *Department of Periodontics, School of Dentistry of Piracicaba, University of Campinas, Piracicaba, SP, Brazil.

    †Currently, Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL; previously, Department of Periodontics, School of Dentistry of Piracicaba, University of Campinas.

    Correspondence: Dr. Luciana Machion, Department of Periodontology, School of Dentistry, University of Florida, P.O. Box 100434, Gainesville, FL 32610. Fax: 352/392-5899; e-mail: lmachion@dental.ufl.edu.

    Background: The objective of this study was to evaluate clinically the effectiveness of a chlorhexidine gluconate chip in sites still showing signs of disease during periodontal maintenance therapy.

    Methods: Forty-two maintenance non-smoking patients (previously treated with non-surgical scaling and root planing [SRP]), presenting at least one probing depth (PD) of 5 to 8 mm, and bleeding on probing (BOP) at single-rooted teeth were assigned randomly to two groups: treated with a chlorhexidine gluconate chip (CHIP group) and treated with SRP (SRP group). Patients were assessed for plaque index, gingival index, BOP, PD, clinical attachment level (CAL), and gingival recession at baseline, 6 weeks, and 3 and 6 months.

    Results: Both treatments resulted in improvements in all parameters evaluated. After 6 months, a reduction in PD of 2.64 ± 0.02 mm and 2.12 ± 0.02 mm was observed for CHIP and SRP groups, respectively (P >0.05). The observed gain in CAL was 2.19 ± 0.87 mm and 2.07 ± 1.53 mm for CHIP and SRP groups, respectively (P >0.05). In deep pockets, PD reduction was 3.60 ± 0.70 mm for CHIP group and 2.83 ± 0.62 mm for SRP group (P = 0.01).

    Conclusions: Both treatments were equally effective in periodontal health reestablishment in inflamed single-root sites of maintenance patients. However, for deep pockets, the chlorhexidine gluconate chip was more effective than SRP in reducing PD.