Comparison of Non Surgical Periodontal Treatment Outcome and Clinician's Comfort Levels using LM ErgoMax over Hu-Friedy Hand Instruments-A Randomised Clinical Trial

Abstract

Introduction: Non surgical periodontal therapy by scaling is done by using different sets of hand and motor driven instruments. The best instrument for non surgical periodontal therapy has to be identified, so that, it will benefit the clinicians in point of ergonomics and for patients in terms of less discomfort caused during scaling. Aim: To compare the effectiveness of Linear Monolithic (LM) instruments to Hu-Friedy instruments in non surgical periodontal treatment. Materials and Methods: The split-mouth randomised clinical trial study comprised 50 patients, who were selected from those attending the Department of Periodontics and Implantology, Vishnu Dental College, Bhimavaram, Andhra Pradesh, India, and who were classified with gingivitis or moderate to severe periodontitis according to American Academy of Periodontology (AAP) standards from 1999 and had not undergone any periodontal therapy in the previous six months to one year. The study was conducted from September 2021 to February 2022. Periodontal treatment outcomes were evaluated by plaque index, bleeding index, probing pocket depths, gingival index, and clinical attachment level. Clinicians comfort levels and handling characteristics of two sets of hand instruments (Test: LM instruments to control: Hu-Friedy instruments) were assessed by questionnaire consisting of 10 closed ended questions immediately after the non surgical therapy. The unpaired t-test was used for intergroup analysis and one-way ANOVA was used for intragroup analysis. Results: The mean gingival index scores for test and control sites at baseline were (1.65 and 1.72), at one week were (0.89 and 0.64) and at one month were (0.46 and 0.31). The mean periodontal pocket depth for test and control sites at baseline were (3.93 and 3.79), at one week were (3.40 and 3.25) and at one month were (3.18 and 2.42). A statistically significant difference seen in gingival index (p=0.001), sulcus bleeding index (p<0.001), periodontal probing depths (p<0.001) and clinical attachment level (p<0.001) at one-month interval. Conclusion: The findings demonstrate that LM instruments have higher handling features and cutting efficiency than HuFriedy instruments, althou gh there is no significant difference in plaque index, gingival index, probing depth reduction, sulcus bleeding index, or clinical attachment level.