This randomized clinical trial compares full-mouth and quadrant-wise scaling and root planing in patients with Stage III periodontitis. In addition to evaluating clinical effectiveness and patient-reported outcomes, the study investigates the environmental sustainability of both treatment protocols using life cycle assessment. The findings are expected to contribute to more sustainable and patient-centered periodontal treatment planning.
Study Type
INTERVENTIONAL
Allocation
RANDOMIZED
Purpose
TREATMENT
Masking
NONE
Enrollment
52
Full-mouth scaling and root planing was completed in a single treatment session using ultrasonic scalers and Gracey curettes. Standardized oral hygiene instructions were provided before treatment. Participants were re-evaluated at 1-, 3-, and 6-month follow-up visits, and additional non-surgical periodontal treatment was provided for sites requiring further therapy when clinically indicated.Clinical outcomes, patient-reported outcomes, and the environmental impact of the treatment protocol were assessed throughout the study.
Quadrant-wise scaling and root planing was performed over four treatment sessions scheduled at one-week intervals using ultrasonic scalers and Gracey curettes. Standardized oral hygiene instructions were provided before treatment. Participants were re-evaluated at 1-, 3-, and 6-month follow-up visits, and additional non-surgical periodontal treatment was provided for sites requiring further therapy when clinically indicated. Clinical outcomes, patient-reported outcomes, and the environmental impact of the treatment protocol were assessed throughout the study.
Selcuk University Faculty of Dentistry
Konya, Turkey (Türkiye)
Probing Pocket Depth (PPD)
Mean probing pocket depth (PPD) was measured at six sites per tooth using a manual periodontal probe and recorded in millimeters (mm). Lower PPD values indicate improved periodontal status.
Time frame: Baseline, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months
Clinical Attachment Level (CAL)
Mean clinical attachment level (CAL) was measured at six sites per tooth using a manual periodontal probe and recorded in millimeters (mm). Lower CAL values indicate improved periodontal attachment.
Time frame: Baseline, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months
Bleeding on Probing (BOP)
Bleeding on probing (BOP) was assessed by recording the presence or absence of bleeding within 30 seconds after gentle periodontal probing at the buccal, lingual/palatal, mesial, and distal surfaces of each tooth. Results were expressed as the percentage (%) of bleeding sites, with lower values indicating reduced gingival inflammation.
Time frame: Baseline, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months
Plaque Index (PI)
Plaque Index (PI) was assessed on all teeth according to the Silness and Löe index and recorded as a mean index score. Lower PI scores indicate better plaque control.
Time frame: Baseline, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months
Gingival Index (GI)
Gingival Index (GI) was assessed on all teeth according to the Löe and Silness index and recorded as a mean index score. Lower GI scores indicate reduced gingival inflammation.
Time frame: Baseline, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months
Periodontal Inflamed Surface Area (PISA)
Periodontal Inflamed Surface Area (PISA) was calculated using a validated method based on clinical attachment level, gingival recession, and bleeding on probing measurements and recorded in square millimeters (mm²). Lower PISA values indicate a reduced periodontal inflammatory burden.
This platform is for informational purposes only and does not constitute medical advice. Always consult a qualified healthcare professional.
Time frame: Baseline, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months
Periodontal Epithelial Surface Area (PESA)
Periodontal Epithelial Surface Area (PESA) was calculated from clinical attachment level and gingival recession measurements and recorded in square millimeters (mm²). Lower PESA values indicate a smaller periodontal epithelial surface area.
Time frame: Baseline, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months
Pain Intensity (Visual Analog Scale, VAS)
Pain intensity following periodontal treatment was assessed using a 10-cm Visual Analog Scale (VAS), where 0 represented no pain and 10 represented the worst imaginable pain. Lower VAS scores indicate lower perceived pain intensity.
Time frame: At the 1-month follow-up visit
Oral Health-Related Quality of Life (OHIP-14)
Oral health-related quality of life was assessed using the Oral Health Impact Profile-14 (OHIP-14) questionnaire.
Time frame: At the 1-month follow-up visit
Analgesic Use
The number of participants who reported using or not using analgesic medication following periodontal treatment was recorded for each treatment group.
Time frame: At the 1-month follow-up visit
Preference for Future Periodontal Treatment
At the 6-month follow-up visit, participants were asked whether, based on their experience with the assigned treatment approach, they would prefer the alternative periodontal treatment approach if future periodontal treatment were needed. Responses were recorded for analysis.
Time frame: At the 6-month follow-up visit
Environmental Impact of Periodontal Treatment Approaches
The environmental impacts of the periodontal treatment approaches were assessed using Life Cycle Assessment (LCA).
Time frame: During the 6-month study period