Avaliação clínica comparativa entre a técnica de tratamento periodontal convencional e a desinfecção total de boca

• Ano de defesa: 2017
• Autor(a) principal: Pontillo, Viviane
• Orientador(a): Nassar , Carlos Augusto
• Banca de defesa: Brandão, Christian Giampietro , Nassar, Carlos Augusto , Souza, Ricardo Sampaio de
• Tipo de documento: Dissertação
• Tipo de acesso: Acesso aberto
• Idioma: por
• Instituição de defesa: Universidade Estadual do Oeste do Paraná; Cascavel
• Programa de Pós-Graduação: Programa de Pós-Graduação em Odontologia
• Departamento: Centro de Ciências Biológicas e da Saúde
• País: Brasil
• Palavras-chave em Português: Doença Periodontal; Tratamento Periodontal Convencional; Desinfecção Total de Boca em estágio único
• Palavras-chave em Inglês: Periodontal Disease; Conventional Periodontal Treatment; Full Mouth Disinfection
• Área do conhecimento CNPq: CIENCIAS DA SAUDE::ODONTOLOGIA
• Link de acesso: http://tede.unioeste.br/handle/tede/3442

Periodontal disease is chronic and multifactorial, affecting protection and support tissues of the tooth. Its onset is due to the accumulation of bacterial plaque, in which are found microorganisms, mainly Gram-negative, which stimulate the host cells and the production of immunoinflammatory molecules. Thus, the objective of this research was to evaluate the effectiveness of the two techniques of periodontal treatment through clinical parameters and laboratory tests. For this, 42 patients were randomly evaluated and divided into three groups of 14 patients each: Group 1 (control) - periodontally healthy patients, with the other groups of patients with moderate to severe chronic periodontitis, group 2 being treated with the conventional periodontal treatment technique and group 3 with the total mouth disinfection technique. All of these patients were submitted to periodontal treatment and evaluated through plaque and gingival index, depth of probing, clinical insertion level, bleeding probing, analysis of PGE2 isoform expression and analysis of crevicular gingival fluid, being evaluated for a total period of 180 days. The results of the periodontal and laboratory parameters did not show significant difference statistically (p> 0.05) when compared to the techniques in the period of 180 days. Therefore, it can be affirmed that both periodontal treatments were effective, but without superiority between them. However, both improved periodontal and laboratorial clinical parameters significantly. Thus, the professional should evaluate the case of the patient and choose the treatment that best suits its needs and availability.