Ozonized gels vs chlorhexidine in non‐surgical periodontal treatment: A randomized clinical trial

Abstract

AbstractObjectiveTo evaluate the efficacy of newly introduced ozonated gels compared with conventional chlorhexidine gel in the home management of periodontal patients.Materials and Methods30 patients with bilateral periodontal disease (severity I, complexity II) were enrolled (split‐mouth study design). After nonsurgical mechanical periodontal debridement, the teeth were randomly divided into two groups: teeth in the Control group were treated with a chlorhexidine‐based gel to aid oral hygiene maneuvers for 2 weeks after the first visit, while teeth in the Test group were treated in the same way with ozone‐based gels. After the baseline assessment, the follow‐up included assessments at 1, 2, and 6 months. The variables evaluated were clinical attachment loss (CAL), probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BoP), plaque control record (PCR), recession (R), and tooth mobility (TM).ResultsFor CAL, PPD, BoP, and PCR, significant intragroup differences were found for both groups (p < 0.05), in contrast to intergroup differences (p > 0.05). No significant differences were found for R and TM.ConclusionNonsurgical mechanical periodontal debridement with adjunctive use of ozone and chlorhexidine was found to be effective in periodontal treatment. Ozone could be suggested as an alternative to chlorhexidine.