2001Journal Of Clinical PeriodontologyRequires access

Local delivery of chlorhexidine gluconate (PerioChipTM) in periodontal maintenance patients

P. A. Heasman, L. Heasman, Fiona Stacey, Giles McCracken

Open publisher page 95 citations

Abstract

AIM: The aim of this randomised, split-mouth, single-blind study was to determine the efficacy of controlled-release delivery of chlorhexidine gluconate 2.5 mg (PerioChip) in patients with residual bleeding pockets (>5 mm) at least 3 months following oral hygiene and root debridement phase therapy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 26 patients (non-smokers) were screened and potential study sites identified. Clinical parameters recorded at baseline and all subsequent visits were plaque index (PI), pocket probing depth (PPD), bleeding index (BI) and clinical attachment level (CAL). All study sites were debrided using ultrasonic instrumentation. PerioChips (PC) were placed in the selected sites of two quadrants (left or right) whilst identified sites in the remaining quadrants were left without adjunctive antimicrobial treatment. Clinical measurements were made at follow-up visits after 1, 3 and 6 months. Mean changes from baseline in PPD, BI and CAL were calculated with the patient as the experimental unit and comparability between the treatments was determined using t-tests. RESULTS: At baseline there were no significant differences between PC and control sites for mean PI, PD, BI or CAL. The mean (SE) reductions in PPD for PC and control treatments were: 0.47 (0.1), 0.46 (0.1); 0.76 (0.1), 0.55 (0.1); 0.78 (0.1), 0.45 (0.1) for months 1, 3 and 6 respectively. Only at month 6 did the difference between treatments approach statistical significance (p=0.06). Mean (SE) reductions in CAL over the same periods were: 0.17 (0.1), 0.04 (0.08); 0.38 (0.1), 0.21 (0.1); 0.43 (0.1), 0.15 (0.09) p=0.048. Mean (SE) reduction in BI between PC and control treatments only reached statistical significance at 6 months: 1.08 (0.1), 0.59 (0.1) p=0.05. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that PerioChip is beneficial for patients on maintenance therapy although the benefit is not apparent until 6 months after placement.

About this research paper

What this paper is about

AIM: The aim of this randomised, split-mouth, single-blind study was to determine the efficacy of controlled-release delivery of chlorhexidine gluconate 2.5 mg (PerioChip) in patients with residual bleeding pockets (>5 mm) at least 3 months following oral hygiene and root debridement phase therapy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 26 patients (non-smokers) were screened and potential study sites identified. Clinical parameters recorded at baseline and all subsequent visits were plaque index (PI), pocket probing depth (PPD), bleeding index (BI) and clinical attachment level (CAL). All study sites were debrided using ultrasonic instrumentation. PerioChips (PC) were placed in the selected sites of two quadrants (left or right) whilst identified sites in the remaining quadrants were left without adjunctive antimicrobial treatment. Clinical measurements were made at follow-up visits after 1, 3 and 6 months. Mean changes from baseline in PPD, BI and CAL were calculated with the patient as the experimental unit and comparability between the treatments was determined using t-tests. RESULTS: At baseline there were no significant differences between PC and control sites for mean PI, PD, BI or CAL. The mean (SE) reductions in PPD for PC and control treatments were: 0.47 (0.1), 0.46 (0.1); 0.76 (0.1), 0.55 (0.1); 0.78 (0.1), 0.45 (0.1) for months 1, 3 and 6 respectively. Only at month 6 did the difference between treatments approach statistical significance (p=0.06). Mean (SE) reductions in CAL over the same periods were: 0.17 (0.1), 0.04 (0.08); 0.38 (0.1), 0.21 (0.1); 0.43 (0.1), 0.15 (0.09) p=0.048. Mean (SE) reduction in BI between PC and control treatments only reached statistical significance at 6 months: 1.08 (0.1), 0.59 (0.1) p=0.05. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that PerioChip is beneficial for patients on maintenance therapy although the benefit is not apparent until 6 months after placement.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 95 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

AIM: The aim of this randomised, split-mouth, single-blind study was to determine the efficacy of controlled-release delivery of chlorhexidine gluconate 2.5 mg (PerioChip) in patients with residual bleeding pockets (>5 mm) at least 3 months following oral hygiene and root debridement phase therapy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: 26 patients (non-smokers) were screened and potential study sites identified. Clinical parameters recorded at baseline and all subsequent visits were plaque index (PI), pocket probing depth (PPD), bleeding index (BI) and clinical attachment level (CAL). All study sites were debrided using ultrasonic instrumentation. PerioChips (PC) were placed in the selected sites of two quadrants (left or right) whilst identified sites in the remaining quadrants were left without adjunctive antimicrobial treatment. Clinical measurements were made at follow-up visits after 1, 3 and 6 months. Mean changes from baseline in PPD, BI and CAL were calculated with the patient as the experimental unit and comparability between the treatments was determined using t-tests. RESULTS: At baseline there were no significant differences between PC and control sites for mean PI, PD, BI or CAL. The mean (SE) reductions in PPD for PC and control treatments were: 0.47 (0.1), 0.46 (0.1); 0.76 (0.1), 0.55 (0.1); 0.78 (0.1), 0.45 (0.1) for months 1, 3 and 6 respectively. Only at month 6 did the difference between treatments approach statistical significance (p=0.06). Mean (SE) reductions in CAL over the same periods were: 0.17 (0.1), 0.04 (0.08); 0.38 (0.1), 0.21 (0.1); 0.43 (0.1), 0.15 (0.09) p=0.048. Mean (SE) reduction in BI between PC and control treatments only reached statistical significance at 6 months: 1.08 (0.1), 0.59 (0.1) p=0.05. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that PerioChip is beneficial for patients on maintenance therapy although the benefit is not apparent until 6 months after placement.

Key concepts: Medicine, Dentistry, Bleeding on probing, Debridement (dental), Statistical significance, Chlorhexidine, Chlorhexidine gluconate, Oral hygiene

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
Local delivery of chlorhexidine gluconate (PerioChipTM) in periodontal maintenance patients — Research Paper | ScholarLens