Resumen de Clinical Evaluation of the Use of Locally Delivered Chlorhexidine in Periodontal Maintenance Therapy
Antonio Wilson Sallum, Enilson Antonio Sallum, Ivana Ferreira Gomes Rodrigues, Luciana Machion, Marcio Zaffalon Casati, Francisco Humberto Nociti, Sergio de Toledo Toledo
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.
