Advanced search
Start date
Betweenand
(Reference retrieved automatically from SciELO through information on FAPESP grant and its corresponding number as mentioned in the publication by the authors.)

Response of molars and non-molars to a strict supragingival control in periodontal patients

Full text
Author(s):
Patrícia Daniela Melchiors Angst [1] ; Flávia Benetti Piccinin [2] ; Rui Vicente Oppermann [3] ; Rosemary Adriana Chiérici Marcantonio [4] ; Sabrina Carvalho Gomes [5]
Total Authors: 5
Affiliation:
[1] Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. Department of Periodontology - Brasil
[2] Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. Department of Periodontology - Brasil
[3] Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. Department of Periodontology - Brasil
[4] Universidade Estadual Paulista. Department of Periodontology - Brasil
[5] Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. Department of Periodontology - Brasil
Total Affiliations: 5
Document type: Journal article
Source: Brazilian Oral Research; v. 27, n. 1, p. 55-60, 2013-02-00.
Abstract

The posterior position in the arches is one of the factors that underlies the poor prognosis of molar teeth (M). It is speculated that M do not benefit from the oral hygiene routine as well as non-molars (NM) do. This study evaluated the response of M and NM to supragingival control during a 6-month period in 25 smokers (S) and 25 never-smokers (NS) with moderate-to-severe periodontitis. One calibrated examiner assessed visible plaque (VPI) and gingival bleeding (GBI) indexes, periodontal probing depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BOP), and clinical attachment loss (CAL) at days 0 (baseline), 30 and 180. At baseline, M showed significantly higher mean values of VPI (p = 0.017) and PPD (p < 0.001) compared with NM; CAL was also greater in M (p < 0.001) and was affected by smoking (p = 0.007). The reductions obtained for periodontal indicators at day 180 showed similar responses between M and NM. For CAL, M (NS 0.57 ± 0.50; S 0.67 ± 0.64) and NM (NS 0.38 ± 0.23; S 0.50 ± 0.33) reached an almost significant difference (p = 0.05). Smoking did not influence the response to treatment. Multilevel analysis revealed that, only for PDD reductions, the interaction between sites, teeth and patient was significant (p < 0.001). It was concluded that M benefit from an adequate regimen of supragingival biofilm control; therefore, supragingival condition should be considered in the prognosis of molar teeth. (AU)