EVALUATION OF CLINICAL EFFICACY THERAPEUTIC ON THE USE OF CHLORHEXIDINE GLUCONATE TO INFLUENCE THE SHAPE OF THE GEL AND PERIOCHIP DURING GINGIVAL INFLAMMATION IN CHRONIC PERIODONTAL DISEASE

Sahmedin Saliu, Liburn Kurtishi, Nexhibe Nuhii

Abstract

Objectivies: Evaluation of the practical clinical therapeutic effect, on the influence of the form in gel and chip containing chlorhexidine Gluconate during gingivitis, through comparative analysis in patients using conventional method (CM), conventional gel-supported therapy (chlosite) Chlorhexidine gluconate (CM-S and conventional therapy supported with PerioChip Chlorhexidine gluconate (CM-S). Materials and Methods: To achieve this goal, there were included 30 patients from both groups and genders, aged 20-50 years old, during the radiological and clinical examination were diagnosed with chronic periodontal disease. The subjects were divided into three groups: the first group, there were used only conventional methods, the second group was treated with CM-S gel, and the third group with CM-S PerioChip Chlorhexidine gluconate. In all three groups included in this study, gingival inflammation with the Silness Loo index was determined at four-time points: first, during the initial treatment, then after the 15th day, after the 30th day and in the end after 90 days of the first treatment. The Gel and PerioChip Chlorhexidine gluconate in patients was initially administered during the first examination. Numerical statistics were analyzed by descriptive statistical methods (Mean Standard Standard Deviation, ± 95% CI, Min., Max.), While the interactive effects between the two examined methods after the first treatment, on the 15th, 30th and the 90th day, were analyzed the effects with repeated measures of Anova (F) / Bonferroni Post-hoc test (p). Results: The results show the reduction of gingival inflammation in all three groups after 15th, 30th and 90th days after the treatment compared to the first examination. Comparison of the gingival inflammation index on the 15th, 30th and 90th day between the three groups, shows significantly better therapeutic efficacy in the CM-S-treated groups, which was supported using Gel and PerioChip Chlorhexidine gluconate. Conclusion: Subjects treated with CM-S, compared to those treated with CM, had a significantly improved their clinical effect, while having significant efficacy against gingival inflammation whereas the gel application method has more significant application efficacy.

Pages: 149 - 155