J Periodontal Implant Sci.  2015 Oct;45(5):184-189. 10.5051/jpis.2015.45.5.184.

Effect of root planing on the reduction of probing depth and the gain of clinical attachment depending on the mode of interproximal bone resorption

• Choi YM
• Lee JY
• Choi J
• Joo JY

• KMID: 2212007
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.5051/jpis.2015.45.5.184

Abstract

PURPOSE
The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the effect of root planing on the reduction of probing pocket depth and the gain of clinical attachment depending on the pattern of bone resorption (vertical versus horizontal bone loss) in the interproximal aspect of premolar teeth that showed an initial probing pocket depth of 4-6 mm.
METHODS
In this study, we analyzed 68 teeth (15 from the maxilla and 53 from the mandible) from 32 patients with chronic periodontitis (17 men and 15 women; mean age, 53.6 years). The probing pocket depth and clinical attachment level at all six sites around each tooth were recorded before treatment to establish a baseline value, and then three months and six months after root planing.
RESULTS
The reduction in interdental pocket depth was 1.1 mm in teeth that experienced horizontal bone loss and 0.7 mm in teeth that experienced vertical bone loss. Interdental attachment was increased by 1.0 mm in teeth with horizontal bone loss and by 0.7 mm in teeth with vertical bone loss. The reduction of probing pocket depth and the gain of clinical attachment occurred regardless of defect patterns three and six months after root planing.
CONCLUSIONS
The reduction of pocket depth and gain in the clinical attachment level were significantly larger in horizontally patterned interproximal bone defects than in vertical bone defects.

Keyword

Alveolar bone loss; Periodontal pocket; Root planing

MeSH Terms

Alveolar Bone Loss
Bicuspid
Bone Resorption*
Chronic Periodontitis
Female
Humans
Male
Maxilla
Periodontal Pocket
Root Planing*
Tooth

Figure

• 

  Figure 1 Bone loss at interdental sites was categorized as horizontal or vertical bone loss. (A) If the slope angle between the root and interdental bone wall was 90°±10° on radiographs, the defect was designated as horizontal bone loss. (B) If the angle of bone loss was between 25° and 37°, the defect was designated as vertical bone loss. A1, CEJ; B1, the top of the crest; C1, the top of the proximal bone crest of the adjacent tooth; D1, the bottom of the bone defect.

Reference

1. Heitz-Mayfield LJ, Trombelli L, Heitz F, Needleman I, Moles D. A systematic review of the effect of surgical debridement vs. non-surgical debridement for the treatment of chronic periodontitis. J Clin Periodontol. 2002; 29:Suppl 3. 92–102.

2. Socransky SS, Haffajee AD. The bacterial etiology of destructive periodontal disease: current concepts. J Periodontol. 1992; 63:322–331.

3. Renvert S, Persson GR. A systematic review on the use of residual probing depth, bleeding on probing and furcation status following initial periodontal therapy to predict further attachment and tooth loss. J Clin Periodontol. 2002; 29:Suppl 3. 82–89.

4. Papapanou PN, Wennström JL. The angular bony defect as indicator of further alveolar bone loss. J Clin Periodontol. 1991; 18:317–322.

5. Van der Weijden GA, Timmerman MF. A systematic review on the clinical efficacy of subgingival debridement in the treatment of chronic periodontitis. J Clin Periodontol. 2002; 29:Suppl 3. 55–71.

6. Ishikawa I, Baehni P. Nonsurgical periodontal therapy--where do we stand now? Periodontol 2000. 2004; 36:9–13.

7. Brown LJ, Löe H. Prevalence, extent, severity and progression of periodontal disease. Periodontol 2000. 1993; 2:57–71.

8. Lindhe J, Socransky SS, Nyman S, Haffajee A, Westfelt E. “Critical probing depths” in periodontal therapy. J Clin Periodontol. 1982; 9:323–336.

9. Liñares A, Cortellini P, Lang NP, Suvan J, Tonetti MS. European Research Group on Periodontology (ErgoPerio). European Research Group on Periodontology ErgoPerio Guided tissue regeneration/deproteinized bovine bone mineral or papilla preservation flaps alone for treatment of intrabony defects. II: radiographic predictors and outcomes. J Clin Periodontol. 2006; 33:351–358.

10. Steffensen B, Webert HP. Relationship between the radiographic periodontal defect angle and healing after treatment. J Periodontol. 1989; 60:248–254.

11. Lang NP. Focus on intrabony defects-conservative therapy. Periodontol 2000. 2000; 22:51–58.

12. Lindhe J, Westfelt E, Nyman S, Socransky SS, Heijl L, Bratthall G. Healing following surgical/non-surgical treatment of periodontal disease. A clinical study. J Clin Periodontol. 1982; 9:115–128.

13. Badersten A, Nilvéus R, Egelberg J. Effect of nonsurgical periodontal therapy. I. Moderately advanced periodontitis. J Clin Periodontol. 1981; 8:57–72.

14. Tunkel J, Heinecke A, Flemmig TF. A systematic review of efficacy of machine-driven and manual subgingival debridement in the treatment of chronic periodontitis. J Clin Periodontol. 2002; 29:Suppl 3. 72–81.

15. Torfason T, Kiger R, Selvig KA, Egelberg J. Clinical improvement of gingival conditions following ultrasonic versus hand instrumentation of periodontal pockets. J Clin Periodontol. 1979; 6:165–176.

16. Hallmon WW, Rees TD. Local anti-infective therapy: mechanical and physical approaches. A systematic review. Ann Periodontol. 2003; 8:99–114.

17. Badersten A, Nilveus R, Egelberg J. Effect of nonsurgical periodontal therapy. III. Single versus repeated instrumentation. J Clin Periodontol. 1984; 11:114–124.

18. Badersten A, Nilveus R, Egelberg J. Effect of nonsurgical periodontal therapy. II. Severely advanced periodontitis. J Clin Periodontol. 1984; 11:63–76.

19. Pihlstrom BL, Oliphant TH, McHugh RB. Molar and nonmolar teeth compared over 6 1/2 years following two methods of periodontal therapy. J Periodontol. 1984; 55:499–504.