跳至主要内容
临床试验/NCT06936306
NCT06936306已完成不适用

Effect of Professional Prophylaxis on Clinical Parameters and Patient Comfort: Randomized Slipt-Mouth Clinical Trial

University of Lisbon1 个研究点 分布在 1 个国家目标入组 25 人开始时间: 2022年3月17日最近更新:
适应症
干预措施

试验速览

阶段
不适用
状态
已完成
入组人数
25
试验地点
1
主要终点
GBI

研究概览

简要总结

The goal of this clinical trial is to evaluate whether the Guided Biofilm Therapy (GBT) protocol can improve or maintain oral health and whether it provides more comfort to patients compared to a conventional protocol.

The study involved 25 adult patients aged 18 years or older, healthy, unmedicated, with more than 20 natural teeth, and no periodontitis.

Main Questions it Aims to Answer:

  • Does the GBT protocol improve or maintain oral health compared to a conventional protocol?
  • Is the GBT protocol more comfortable for patients than the conventional protocol? Comparison Group: Researchers compared the conventional protocol (used in quadrants I and III for Group A, and in quadrants II and IV for Group B) to the test GBT protocol (used in the opposite quadrants) to see if the GBT protocol results in improved clinical outcomes and better patient comfort.

Participants Will:

  • Undergo two different protocols for oral prophylaxis (GBT and conventional protocols) on separate quadrants of their mouth.
  • Have their clinical parameters assessed at three time points: baseline (T0), one week (T1), and three weeks (T2) after the intervention.
  • Rate the comfort of the intervention using a Visual Analog Scale (VAS) on a Likert scale from 0 to 10 for each quadrant.

详细描述

After the initial evaluation of the participants and their inclusion in the study, the participants were randomized in blocks into group A where a conventional protocol was used in quadrants I and III and the test protocol in quadrants II and IV, and group B where a conventional protocol was used in quadrants II and IV and the test protocol in quadrants I and III.

The observations were made at three different times: baseline, one week after the intervention, and three weeks after the intervention. (Figure 1) The clinical assessment of each participant was performed using the the Ainamo & Bay gingival bleeding index (GBI), the O'Leary plaque control record (PCR) and the Silness and Löe plaque index (PI). (26-28) The primary outcome variable of the study was the Gingival Bleeding Index (GBI) with the Plaque Index (PI) as a secondary outcome variable.

Hard and soft deposits were removed according to the protocol assigned in one appointment performed by the principal investigator the day after the first data collection. The control protocol consisted of mechanical scaling with Woodpecker® scaler (Guilin, Guangxi, 541004 P.R.China) at power 1, followed by stain removal and polishing with R&S RUBBER DOME (R&S® Dental products 25, Rue Bleue - 75009 Paris) with Prophy Paste CCS® polishing paste RDA 250 (Directa AB P.O. Box 723, SE-194 27 Upplands Väsby, Sweden) at a speed of 10,000 rotations per minute.

The test protocol consisted in an assessment of the periodontal status following the application of the plaque discloser (Biofilm Discloser, Dr. Wittmann GmbH & Co KG 64673 Zwingenberg - Germany), followed by oral hygiene instructions and biofilm removal with an erythritol jet (Airflow Plus Powder®, Electro Medical Systems S.A.), Chemin de la Vuarpillière, 31, 1260 Nyon - Switzerland) with the Airflow Prophylaxis Master® device (Electro Medical Systems S.A., Chemin de la Vuarpillière, 31, 1260 Nyon - Switzerland). The jet stream was used at a power of 3 and the irrigation at a power of 10. Calculus removal was then performed with the piezon scaller of the same device using a PS scaler tip (Electro Medical Systems® S.A., Chemin de la Vuarpillière, 31, 1260 Nyon - Switzerland).

The first follow-up assessment (T1) was performed one week after the intervention, and the second follow-up assessment (T2) was performed 3 weeks after the intervention performed by the same research assistant that performed the initial assessment (T0). indecesThe precision and accuracy of the data collection was ensured by calibrating the instruments used and the investigators to minimize and control possible measurement errors. The assistant investigator underwent calibration before the start of the study to train the indeces, followed by a discussion of the criteria with the principal investigator.

研究设计

研究类型
Interventional
分配方式
Randomized
干预模型
Crossover
主要目的
Supportive Care
盲法
Double (Participant, Investigator)

入排标准

年龄范围
18 Years 至 —(Adult, Older Adult)
性别
All
接受健康志愿者
是

入选标准

  • •healthy, unmedicated, without periodontitis, and with more than 20 natural teeth

排除标准

  • •dental implants, with periodontal pockets equal to or greater than 4, with fixed orthodontic appliances, with special needs, with some medical pathology, taking antibiotics 3 months before the study, smokers, with known hypersensitivity to erythritol and patients who did not complete the follow-up.

研究组 & 干预措施

Test

Experimental

GBT Protocol

干预措施: GBT (Procedure)

Test

Experimental

GBT Protocol

干预措施: Master (Device)

Control

Active Comparator

Scalling and polishing

干预措施: scalling (Procedure)

结局指标

主要结局

GBI

时间窗: 4 weeks

Ainamo \& Bay gingival bleeding index

次要结局

  • PCR(4 weeks)
  • PI(4 weeks)

研究者

申办方类型
Other
责任方
Principal Investigator
主要研究者

João Nascimento

Principal Investigator

University of Lisbon

研究点 (1)

Loading locations...

相似试验