Comparison between Antimicrobial Photodynamic Therapy and Low-level laser therapy on non-surgical periodontal treatment: A Clinical Study

•aPDT and LLLT therapy promoted improvements in periodontal clinical parameters;•A decrease in the number of moderate pockets was found in the LLLT group;•Photosensitizer not promote additional gains in clinical periodontal parameters. Alternative antibacterial therapeutic modalities, such as antimicrobial photodynamic therapy (aPDT) and low-level laser therapy (LLLT), have been proposed to improve the effectiveness of periodontal treatment. However, clinical studies evaluating the efficiency of these treatments have been inconclusive, partly due to contradictory results regarding their clinical and microbiological effects. The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical effects of aPDT and LLLT after a one-stage full-mouth disinfection (OSFMD) protocol during periodontitis treatment. A split-mouth clinical trial was conducted in 20 patients presenting at least two contralateral teeth with a probing pocket depth (PD) ≥ 5 mm and bleeding on probing (BOP) on both sides of the mouth. All patients were submitted to an OSFMD protocol. The selected sites randomly received either (1) aPDT (methylene blue as a photosensitizer activated by red and infrared diode laser) or (2) LLLT (red and infrared diode laser). Clinical parameters were assessed at baseline and at 4 and 12 weeks post-treatment. Both treatment protocols promoted significant reductions in PD, number of deep pockets and BOP and an increase in clinical attachment level (CAL) after 4 and 12 weeks, but there were no differences between the two groups. There was no change in the gingival level (GL) of either group for all periods of analysis. A decrease in the number of moderate pockets (4–5 mm) was found in the LLLT group (5.15 ± 4.20) when compared to the aPDT group (7.10 ± 5.24), but only after 4 weeks. In conclusion, both the aPDT and LLLT therapies promoted improvements in periodontal clinical parameters after the OSFMD protocol; however, in general, there were no distinct differences between the two treatment modalities evaluated in this study.