Comparative Evaluation of Local Drug Delivery with Periodontal Plus Ab (Tetracycline Fibers) and 0.2% Hyaluronic Acid Gel as an Adjunct to Scaling and Root Planing in the Treatment of Periodontitis

Abstract

Introduction: Periodontitis is a chronic inflammatory disease of the periodontium, characterized by the destruction of supporting tissues around the teeth. Local drug delivery (LDD) systems have been proposed as adjuncts to scaling and root planing (SRP) to enhance treatment outcomes. This study aimed to compare the efficacy of tetracycline fibers and 0.2% hyaluronic acid gel as LDD agents in conjunction with SRP for the treatment of periodontitis.

Objective: To clinically compare the efficacy of treatment of periodontitis with Periodontal Plus Ab (Tetracycline Fibers) and 0.2% hyaluronic acid gel.

Methodology: A randomized controlled trial was conducted involving 70 patients diagnosed with moderate to severe periodontitis. The patients were randomly assigned to two treatment groups: Group A received SRP along with Periodontal Plus Ab (Tetracycline Fibers), while Group B received SRP along with 0.2% hyaluronic acid gel. Clinical parameters including probing pocket depth (PPD), clinical attachment level (CAL), plaque index (PI) and gingival index (GI) were recorded at baseline and at 3-month follow-up appointments.

RESULTS: Both treatment groups demonstrated significant improvements in PPD, CAL, and GI scores from baseline to the 3-month follow-up. However, there were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in terms of mean reduction in PPD, gain in CAL, or reduction in GI (p > 0.05). Furthermore, both tetracycline fibers and 0.2% hyaluronic acid gel were well-tolerated by the patients with no adverse effects reported.

Conclusion: The findings of this study suggest that both Periodontal Plus Ab (Tetracycline Fibers) and 0.2% hyaluronic acid gel are effective adjuncts to SRP in the treatment of periodontitis. However, no significant differences were observed between the two LDD agents in terms of clinical outcomes. Further research with larger sample sizes and longer follow-up periods may be warranted to confirm these findings and elucidate the long-term efficacy and safety of these LDD modalities in periodontal therapy.