Comparative Evaluation of Minimally Invasive Nonsurgical Periodontal Therapy Versus Conventional Subgingival Instrumentation

Plain-language summary

Background- The use of minimally invasive procedures has recently been advocated for the treatment of periodontitis, to minimize patient discomfort and maximize the healing potential. These techniques usually involve the use of magnification lenses or microscopes and small instruments which reduce the risk of tissue trauma compared with traditional instruments. Rationale- So far only descriptive data about the clinical effects of such procedure are available and comparative studies that would include other treatment alternatives are lacking. Therefore, the aim of this study is, on split-mouth model, to compare the number of diseased sites (defined by probing depth ˃ 4 mm and bleeding on probing) after conventional subgingival instrumentation and Minimally invasive nonsurgical periodontal therapy (MINST) with the usage of special mini instruments and magnifying loupes. Objectives- To compare sites that have residual probing depth and require further surgical intervention after undergoing the two treatment modalities. Methods- In this split mouth randomized controlled trial, Test group will undergo non surgical therapy under magnification and using special mini bladed instruments while the control group will undergo conventional subgingival instrumentation. Reevaluation will be at 6 weeks and 3 months. Expected outcomes- If both the groups differ in outcomes after therapy, MINST can be used to minimize the number of sites that require surgery and hence will reduce treatment costs and morbidity.

Who can participate

What they're measuring

Trial details