Authors: Sahmedin Sali, Lindihana Emini, Qenan Ferrati, M. Berani

UDC: 616.311.2-002-085.281

DOI: To be acquired

Keywords: chronic periodontal disease, gingival inflammation, conventional therapy, PerioChip Chlorhexidine gluconate.

ABSTRACT

Aim: evaluation of the impact therapeutic effect of the chip which contain Chlorhexidine Gluconate on the gingival inflammation through comparative analysis in patients with the application of the conventional method (CM) and conventional therapy supported with PerioChip Chlorhexidine gluconate (CM-P) .
Materials and methods: For the realization of our aim was included 30 patients from both genders, aged 20-50 years, in which radiographic and clinically was diagnosed chronic periodontal disease. The subjects are divided in two groups: in the first was used only the conventional method and in the second the subjects were treated with CM - P. In both groups included in this study we have determined the index of the gingival inflammation by Sillness – Loo in four time points: the first during the initial treatment at the first examination. Then after 15th day, after 30th day and on the end after the 90th day from the first treatment. The PerioChip Chlorhexidine gluconate in patients was administered at the beginning during the first examination. The numerical statistical was analyzed with descriptive statistics methods ( Mean ± Standard deviation . , ± 95 % CI , Min . , Max . ), while the interactive effects between the two examined methods after the first treatment during the first examination , at 15th, at 30th and at 90th day, were analyzed with the Repeated measures Anova (F) / Post - hoc Bonferroni test ( p ) .
Results: The results show reduction of the gingival inflammation in both groups after the 15 th, 30 th and after the 90th days from the initial treatment in comparison with the first examination. The comparison of gingival Inflammation on the 15th, 30th and 90th day between the both groups, demonstrate significantly better therapeutic efficiency in the group treated with CM which was supported with using of the PerioChip Chlorhexidine gluconate.
Conclusion: The subjects treated with the CM- P , as opposed to those treated with CM, had an significantly improved clinical effects which were observed through decreased gingival inflammation.