Search

Background: The study aims to assess the clinical efficacy of periosteal pedicle graft (PPG) as a barrier membrane in guided tissue regeneration (GTR) for gingival recession, intrabony, and furcation defects. Materials and Methods: Electronic and hand searches were performed to identify randomized controlled/clinical trials investigating GTR using PPG, with 6-month follow-up. Primary outcomes recorded: probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), bone fill, recession depth (RD) reduction, percentage of mean root coverage, keratinized tissue width (KTW), and bone defect area (BDA). Results: Thirteen articles were selected; 6 for recession, 2 for furcation, and 5 for intrabony. Meta-analysis was performed whenever possible, results expressed as pooled standardized mean differences (SMDs). I n recession defects, the RD pooled SMD is 0.47 (95% confidence interval (CI) = [-0.50-1.44]), KTW pooled SMD is 1.30 (95% CI = [-0.30-2.91]), favoring PPG over the comparator. In furcation defects, PD pooled SMD is 1.12 (95% CI = [-2.77-0.52]), CAL pooled SMD is 0.71 (95% CI = [-1.09-2.50]), and bone fill pooled SMD is 0.67 (95% CI = [-3.34-4.69]) favoring PPG. In intrabony defects, PD pooled SMD is 0.54 (95% CI = [-2.12-1.04]), CAL pooled SMD is 0.23 (95% CI = [-1.13-0.68]), and BDA pooled SMD is 0.37 (95% CI = [-1.58-2.31]) favoring PPG. The results were not statistically significant. Conclusion: The current evidence indicates that PPG constitutes a valid and reliable alternative to collagen barrier membranes for successful GTR. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: This study aimed to compare the efficacy of subgingivally applied probiotics as an adjunct to scaling and root planing (SRP) vs SRP alone in patients with periodontitis. Materials and Methods: Patients diagnosed with periodontitis, with probing pocket depth (PPD) of 5-7 mm on at least two teeth on contralateral sites, were selected for the study and randomly allocated to the test group (n = 31) who underwent SRP along with subgingival application of probiotic paste and the control group (n = 31) who underwent only SRP. Clinical parameters were evaluated in both groups at baseline and after 12 weeks. The viability of probiotic bacteria was evaluated in the test group at baseline, day 4 and day 8. Results: All clinical parameters showed a statistically significant difference between baseline and 12 weeks on intragroup and intergroup comparison, with a greater improvement in the test group. Microbiological evaluation showed that the mean colony-forming units (CFUs) in the test group were 38.39 ± 7.76, 7.25 ± 2.72 and 1.57 ± 1.29 at baseline, day 4 and day 8, respectively. The mean CFUs significantly reduced with an increase in time from baseline to 8-day time interval. Conclusion: It was seen that the probiotic bacteria remained viable in the periodontal pocket for up to 8 days after placement, but stable improvements were seen in all clinical parameters even at 12 weeks, indicating its prolonged efficacy. Thus, commercially available probiotics can prove to be an inexpensive method to treat periodontitis when combined with SRP. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]