Please activate JavaScript!
Please install Adobe Flash Player, click here for download

Journal of Oral Science & Rehabilitation Issue 01/2015

BoP/Sup: The presence or absence of bleeding/ suppuration was determined in the same man- nerasatthebaselineexamination. PPD: Pocket depth was measured in the same mannerasatthebaselineexamination(Fig.2a). A radiograph, aiming to controlthe area distalto the mandibular second molars after extraction, wasalsotakenatthisappointmentusingthepar- allelingtechnique.14 Clinicalcriteriaforhealthyor diseasedsitesaftertreatment At the re-evaluations, the surface distal to the second molars was considered healthy if there wasaPPDof≤ 4 mmwithoutBoP/Sup.Thepres- ence of periodontal disease was determined basedonaPPDof≥ 5 mmwithBoP/Sup. Baseline a n d s ix-m on th radiograph ic m ea s urem en ts The radiographs were evaluated by a second periodontist (AT), who was not aware of the study design. The bone loss distal to the second molarat baseline and atthe six-month examina- tion was measured. Thus, the distance between the cemento-enamel junction and the most coronallevelalongtherootsurfacesatwhichthe periodontal spacewas consideredto have a nor- malwidth15 was measured using a program for digital radiographic images (Planmeca Romexis, Helsinki, Finland) with 10× magnifying power and a precision of0.1 mm (Fig.2b).The presence orabsenceofanalveolarbonedefect(i.e.,abony defect 2  mm wide and 2  mm deep) was also recorded. Data a n a lys es Each mandibular second molar was regarded as an independent observation. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test and Mann–Whitney U test wereappliedtotestthedifferenceinPPDandra- diographicbonelosswithinandbetweenthetwo groups at baseline and the six-month examina- tion. The Fisher exact probability test was ap- pliedtoassessdifferencesintreatmentoutcome inthetestandcontrolgroups.Ap-valueof< 0.05 wasconsideredtobestatisticallysignificant. Samplesizecalculation Based on an anticipated difference in mean PPD of 1.0 mm between the test and control groups andcalculatedstandarddeviationof1.1 mmfrom previous studies,10, 11 Type I error and 80% power, the calculated sample size was 20 sub- jectspergroup. Dropout During the study period, four patients in the test groupandthreeinthecontrolgroupdroppedout fromthestudy;onemovedandtheothersdidnot attendthesix-monthexamination (Fig.3). Volume 1 | Issue 1/2015 55Journal of Oral Science & Rehabilitation Rem ova l of parti ally e ru pte d mandi bu lar thi rd mo lars Fig. 3 Fig. 3 Flowchart of the study. Baseline(40patients)1-monthexamination6-monthexamination Pl, BoP, PPD, radiographic bone level Extraction of third molar 40 patients 20 allocated to test group Dental hygienist treatment (PI and GI) 4 dropped out Pl, BoP, PPD, radiographic bone level 16 patients Pl, BoP, PPD, radiographic bone level 17 patients 3 dropped out 20 allocated to control group

Pages Overview