Abstract：
OBJECTIVE: 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.
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.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.
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.
CONCLUSIONS: 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.
摘要：
目的：本研究旨在比较牙周炎患者牙龈下应用益生菌作为刮除和根面平整（SRP）的辅助药物与单用SRP的疗效。
方法：诊断为牙周炎的患者，在对侧部位的至少两颗牙齿上探测5-7毫米的口袋深度（PPD），选择进行研究，并随机分配到接受SRP并在牙龈下应用益生菌糊剂的测试组（n=31）和仅接受SRP的对照组（n=31）。在基线和12周后评估两组的临床参数。在基线时在测试组中评估益生菌的活力，第4天和第8天。
结果：在组内和组间比较中，所有临床参数在基线和12周之间都显示出统计学上的显着差异，在测试组中有更大的改善。微生物学评价显示,试验组平均菌落形成单位(CFUs)在基线时分别为38.39±7.76、7.25±2.72和1.57±1.29,第4天和第8天。平均CFU随着从基线到8天时间间隔的时间增加而显著降低。
结论：发现益生菌在放置后8天内仍在牙周袋中存活，但是即使在12周时，所有临床参数都有稳定的改善，表明其长期疗效。因此，当与SRP联合使用时，市售益生菌可以证明是治疗牙周炎的廉价方法。
方法：诊断为牙周炎的患者，在对侧部位的至少两颗牙齿上探测5-7毫米的口袋深度（PPD），选择进行研究，并随机分配到接受SRP并在牙龈下应用益生菌糊剂的测试组（n=31）和仅接受SRP的对照组（n=31）。在基线和12周后评估两组的临床参数。在基线时在测试组中评估益生菌的活力，第4天和第8天。
结果：在组内和组间比较中，所有临床参数在基线和12周之间都显示出统计学上的显着差异，在测试组中有更大的改善。微生物学评价显示,试验组平均菌落形成单位(CFUs)在基线时分别为38.39±7.76、7.25±2.72和1.57±1.29,第4天和第8天。平均CFU随着从基线到8天时间间隔的时间增加而显著降低。
结论：发现益生菌在放置后8天内仍在牙周袋中存活，但是即使在12周时，所有临床参数都有稳定的改善，表明其长期疗效。因此，当与SRP联合使用时，市售益生菌可以证明是治疗牙周炎的廉价方法。
