A randomized multi‐centre study on the effectiveness of non‐surgical periodontal therapy in general practice

Aim To evaluate the effectiveness of two non‐surgical treatment protocols for periodontitis patients in general dental practice. Materials and Methods Ninety‐five dental hygienists (59 dental clinics) were randomly assigned to one of two treatment protocols: (i) establishment of adequate self‐performed oral hygiene prior to a single session of ultrasonic instrumentation (guided periodontal infection control [GPIC]) or (ii) conventional non‐surgical therapy (CNST) including patient education and scaling and root planing integrated in multiple sessions. Residual pockets at 3 months were retreated in both groups. The primary outcome was pocket closure (probing pocket depth ≤ 4 mm) at 6 months. Multilevel models were utilized. Results Based on data from 615 patients, no significant differences with regard to clinical outcomes were observed between treatment protocols. Treatment‐related costs (i.e., chair time, number of sessions) were significantly lower for GPIC than CNST. Smoking and age significantly affected treatment outcomes. Conclusions No significant differences between the two approaches were observed in regard to clinical outcomes. GPIC was more time‐effective. Patient education should include information on the detrimental effects of smoking. ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02168621).