BACKGOUND The aim of this randomized controlled trial was to assess clinical and patient-reported outcomes of subgingival instrumentation (SI) with adjunctive use of erythritol airflowing (EAF) compared to SI alone in the treatment of periodontitis. METHODS Twenty-six participants with Stage III/IV periodontitis requiring nonsurgical periodontal treatment were randomly allocated into two treatment groups: SI with EAF or SI alone. Clinical parameters of percentage of probing pocket depths (PPDs) of ≥5 mm, full mouth bleeding and plaque scores (FMBS and FMPS), and PPD values were recorded at baseline, and at 3 and 6 months posttreatment. A visual analogue scale was used to evaluate postoperative participants' perception of pain, swelling, bleeding, bruising, and root sensitivity. The impact of periodontal treatment on quality of life was assessed using the General Oral Health Assessment Index (GOHAI) at six months. RESULTS A total of 26 participants with Stage III/IV periodontitis completed the 6-month follow-up. SI with or without EAF resulted in a statistically significant reductions in the FMBS, FMPS, PPDs, and percentage of PPDs of ≥5 mm at the 3- and 6-month follow-up visits. There was no statistically significant difference between the two treatment groups for any time interval. Participants receiving SI/EAF exhibited a higher reduction in FMBS compared to those in SI alone group at 3 (SI/EAF: 19.4 ± 11.9, SI alone: 30.1 ± 20.5; P = 0.12) and 6 months (SI/EAF: 14.3 ± 9.6, SI alone: 24.5 ± 18.2; P = 0.09). A lower percentage of sites with deep PPDs (≥5 mm) was also noted amongst participants in the SI/EAF group compared to SI alone at 3 months (SI/EAF: 14.3 ± 14.1, SI alone: 19.2 ± 20.3; P = 0.48) and 6 months (SI/EAF: 8.3 ± 10.0, SI alone: 15.4 ± 17.4; P = 0.22). Patient-reported outcomes showed no significant differences between the two treatment groups, except in the psychosocial domain of the GOHAI at 6 months favoring the SI/EAF group (P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS Within the limitations of the study, the adjunctive use of EAF in addition to SI in the treatment of Stage III/IV periodontitis did not result in a significant improvement in clinical parameters. Limited improvement in the QoL with EAF could be achieved.

中文翻译：

---

气流作为牙周炎的辅助治疗：一项随机对照试验。


背景 这项随机对照试验的目的是评估牙龈下器械 （SI） 联合辅助使用赤藓糖醇气流 （EAF） 与单独 SI 治疗牙周炎的临床和患者报告结果。方法 将 26 例需要非手术牙周治疗的 III/IV 期牙周炎参与者随机分为两个治疗组： SI 联合 EAF 或单独 SI。在基线、治疗后 3 个月和 6 个月记录探诊袋深度百分比 （PPD） 为 ≥5 mm、满口出血和斑块评分 （FMBS 和 FMPS） 以及 PPD 值的临床参数。视觉模拟量表用于评估术后参与者对疼痛、肿胀、出血、瘀伤和神经根敏感性的感知。在 6 个月时使用一般口腔健康评估指数 （GOHAI） 评估牙周治疗对生活质量的影响。结果 共有 26 例 III/IV 期牙周炎参与者完成了 6 个月的随访。在 3 个月和 6 个月的随访中，有或没有 EAF 的 SI 导致 FMBS、FMPS、PPD 和 PPD 百分比≥ 5 mm 的统计学显着降低。在任何时间间隔内，两个治疗组之间均无统计学意义差异。与单独接受 SI 组相比，接受 SI/EAF 的参与者在 3 时表现出更高的 FMBS 降低 （SI/EAF：19.4 ± 11.9，单独 SI：30.1 ± 20.5;P = 0.12）和 6 个月 （SI/EAF：14.3 ± 9.6，仅 SI：24.5 ± 18.2;P = 0.09）。与 SI 单独 SI 相比，SI/EAF 组参与者在 3 个月时具有深 PPD （≥5 mm） 的部位百分比也较低 （SI/EAF：14.3 ± 14.1，单独 SI：19.2 ± 20.3;P = 0.48）和 6 个月 （SI/EAF：8.3 ± 10.0，仅 SI：15.4 ± 17.4;P = 0.22）。 患者报告的结果显示两个治疗组之间没有显着差异，除了 6 个月时 GOHAI 的心理社会领域有利于 SI/EAF 组 （P = 0.03）。结论 在研究的局限性内，在 III/IV 期牙周炎的 III/IV 期牙周炎治疗中 SI 联合辅助使用 EAF 并未导致临床参数的显着改善。使用 EAF 可以实现 QoL 的有限改善。