LAUSR

Abstract Aim To assess the efficacy of the adjunct use of a subgingival erythritol powder air‐polishing device (EPAP) in comparison to conventional subgingival instrumentation alone during initial non‐surgical periodontal therapy. Materials and Methods Twenty‐one patients with generalized Stages 2 and 3 grade B periodontitis were included in this single centre, single blinded, split‐mouth, randomized clinical trial. Teeth on the control side were treated with conventional hand and ultrasonic instrumentation, while those on the contralateral test side was treated using EPAP as adjunct to conventional subgingival instrumentation with hand and ultrasonic instruments. Three months after initial instrumentation, persisting pockets of ≥4 mm were re‐treated, in both control and test sides, again with the respective treatment approach—subgingival instrumentation alone on control, and subgingival instrumentation + EPAP on test side. Clinical parameters such as probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing, and relative attachment level were recorded at baseline and 3 and 6 months following the initial instrumentation. Subgingival plaque samples were collected at baseline, immediately post surgery, as well as at 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months after initial instrumentation. Results In the test group after 6 months, a significantly larger number of initially deep pockets (PPD ≥ 5.5 mm) were reduced to shallow (PPD ≤ 3.4 mm), and a larger attachment gain was observed. No statistically significant microbiological differences could be found between test and control group. Conclusions The results of the present study indicate that the adjunct use of subgingival airflow therapy with EPAP during initial non‐surgical periodontal therapy might be beneficial in initially deep pockets (PPD ≥ 5.5 mm).