Journal of Research in Medical and Dental Science
eISSN No. 2347-2367 pISSN No. 2347-2545

All submissions of the EM system will be redirected to Online Manuscript Submission System. Authors are requested to submit articles directly to Online Manuscript Submission System of respective journal.

Research - (2020) Volume 8, Issue 1

Efficacy of Intra Periodontal Pocket Application with Combined Chlorhexidine and Hydrogen Peroxide on the Bleeding on Probing and Anaerobic Bacterial Viable Count

Ahmed Kareem1*, Basima Ghafory1 and Abbas S Al-Mizraqchi2

*Correspondence: Ahmed Kareem, Department of Periodontics, College of Dentistry, University of Baghdad, Iraq, Email:

Author info »

Abstract

Introduction: Periodontal pocket is a pathologically deepening of gingival sulcus along with subgingival contamination of hard and soft tissues. Scaling and root planning is an effective treatment in addition to supra gingival plaque managing. Many studies show that the adjunctive use of sub gingival antimicrobial agents with scaling and root planning resulted in improvement clinically and microbiologically.

Aim: To determine if scaling and root planning alone or in combination with 0.2% chlorhexidine and 3% hydrogen peroxide gel (Glucosite gel) have a significant effect on total viable count of anaerobic bacteria and bleeding on probing. Materials and methods: A total 136 periodontal pockets of 20 patients of both sexes aged from 35 to 50 years which have at least two periodontal pockets ranged from 5-6 mm on each side participated in this study, treated with split mouth technique. One side treated via scaling and root planning only, while the other side combined with glucosite gel. Bleeding on probing and total viable anaerobic count was recorded at day zero and after 4 weeks. With exclusion patients who were pregnant, smokers, had systemic diseases or who on orthodontic or periodontal treatment. SPSS for windows was used for data analysis.

Results: Glucosite gel adjunctive to scaling and root planning reduced significantly bleeding on probing and subgingival viable anaerobic bacteria in comparison to scaling and root planning alone.

Conclusion: Applications of glucosite gel subgingivally in combination with scaling and root planning have additional effects on clinical and microbiological periodontal outcomes.

Keywords

Impacted mandibular third molars, Surgical difficulty, Postoperative inflammatory response

Introduction

The primary treatment of chronic periodontitis involving supra and sub gingival plaques removing along with scaling and root planning (SRP) to reducing a load of periodontal pathogens [1], this local treatment has a considerable limitations, as that impossible to eradicate whole subgingival bacteria from an infected sites mechanically [2] and modification of subgingival microorganisms occur after scaling and root planning [3] and viable microorganisms which survive after SRP re-colonize, resulting in new formation of biofilm [4]. So that, an antimicrobial agents have been developed as an adjunct to SRP to improve mechanical instrumentation effectiveness and prevent plaque regeneration which lead to minimizing clinical features of periodontal disease [5,6].

Chlorhexidine (CHX) is a potent anti-bacterial, anti-fungal and anti-viral agent which used broadly [5]. According to its concentration, it can be bacteriostatic or bactericidal. The CHX substantively is the main important special feature [7]. Hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) is an oxygenating material has a wide range of antimicrobial activity [8] along with action of disturbing biofilm via intensifying the oxygen saturation subgingivally [9], accordingly, effect on pro inflammatory cytokines fabrication within periodontal pockets. [10]. Oosterwaal, et al. concluded that the CHX gel can be diminished microbial load inside periodontal pockets by 99% during thirty minutes following application [11]. Paolantonio, et al. found that the SRP accompanied with CHX gel ending in a significant improvement in outcomes clinically [12]. On the other hand, some studies [13,14] showed that using localized anti-microbial releasing systems look to be advantageous more than SRP alone in managing periodontal pockets. In many studies [15-21], hydrogen peroxide and chlorhexidine were used separately and conflicting outcomes were found, therefore we have carried out this study to assess the effectiveness of glucosite gel which contains a combination of chlorhexidine 0.2% and hydrogen peroxide 3% as an adjunct to SRP, and to compare these treatment modalities with the results obtained by SRP alone.

AIM

To provide additional data on the clinical and microbiological effect of combined (CHX and H2O2) gel when used as adjunct to SRP.

Materials and Methods

Glucosite gel from Cerkamed medical company containing chlorhexidine 0.2% and hydrogen peroxide 3%. The activity of the glucosite gel was assessed microbiologically by agar well diffusion method in comparison with chlorhexidine and hydrogen peroxide separately and larger inhibition zones for glucosite were recorded (Figures 1 and 2) [22].

medical-dental-science-anaerobic-subgingival

Figure 1. Susceptibility of total anaerobic subgingival bacteria to chlorhexidine, hydrogen peroxide and glucosite. A: H2O2 alone, B: CHX alone, C: Glucosite.

medical-dental-science-glucosite-gel

Figure 2. Glucosite gel.

Subject selection

Twenty male and female subjects of 35-50 years old, from the department of Periodontology, in the specialized dental center in Missan, enrolled voluntarily and well explained about the aim and purposes of the study and given informed consent to participate in it, each patient treated with split mouth technique, the left side which included 68 periodontal pockets treated with SRP combined with glucosite gel application. While the right side which also included 68 periodontal pockets treated with SRP only. The method of split mouth had a benefit of variables removing among subjects. They were subjected to a questionnaire, including medical, dental and social history, followed by full examinations of clinical periodontal parameters of inflammation:

Plaque index (PLI) and bleeding on probing (BOP).

Exclusion criteria

→ Patients that undertaken periodontal treating in three months just preceding the study, as well as patients has appliances of orthodontic.

→ Patients suffering from systemic diseases, which may have an impact on the periodontium.

→ Uncooperative patients who failed to preserve proper oral hygiene.

→ Current pregnancy or lactation.

→ Patients on antibiotics and/or antiinflammatory drugs during the last 3 months.

→ Patients allergic to CHX and/or H2O2.

→ Smokers as well as alcohol drinkers.

→ Teeth with fixed crowns or bridges and sites with furcation involvement.

A. Sequence of the study subject/ ite selection

Before baseline examination, full mouth supragingival scaling with ultrasonic scalar was done, motivation and oral hygiene instructions were given, concerning instruction in brushing and the use of appropriate interdental cleaning aids until the oral hygiene status reached to mean PLI less than (0.8). All selected sites with periodontal pocket depth 5 to 6 mm.

B. Clinical periodontal parameters recordings

1. Assessment of (PLI): Löe 1964 [23].

2. Assessment of (BOP) [24].

C. Subgingival biofilm sampling

Isolation of treated sites with sterile cotton rolls and removing supragingival plaque using sterile curette, and dried with air. Sampling undertaken by sterile paper point (size F1 dents ply millefer) which pushed into deepest part of pocket for 15 seconds carefully to avoid mechanical injury (Figure 3) [12].

medical-dental-science-plaque-sampling

Figure 3. Subgingival plaque sampling.

D. Microbiological procedure

The plaque sample (paper point) immersed in glass universal tubes containing 3 mm glass beads and 10 ml of phosphate buffer saline and vortexed by vortex mixer for 2-3 minutes. Afterward, serial dilution steps were prepared using sterile phosphate buffer saline; 0.1 ml was withdrawn from each dilution (10-3, 10-5) and spread into the petri dishes that contained brain heart infusion agar using sterile microbiological spreader on the plates. Followed by incubation anaerobically with gas pack supplied in an anaerobic jar for 48 hrs at 37°C (Figure 4)[22].

medical-dental-science-anaerobic-bacteria

Figure 4. Incubator for incubation anaerobic bacteria with gas pack in an anaerobic jar.

E. Intrapplication of glucosite

After SRP performed under local anesthesia for the selected sites, glucosite gel applied gently subgingivally in left periodontal pockets until flowed out from the gingival margin, three times during ten minutes [25].

Statistical Analysis

Data were analyzed using SPSS software version 23 release in 2019. Shapiro-Wilk test was used to check the normality of the data. The statistics used were descriptive along with inferential (p<0.05) considered significant in the statistical evaluation.

Results

Table 1 illustrates the mean percentage of bleeding on probing at zero time and after one month and statistical differences between them for each side. The mean percentage at baseline was (77.985), (73.48) while after one month became (47.975), (22.995) for right and left sides respectively and the results were found to be of highly significant difference for both sides (P<0.01).

Variable Side No. of sites Visit Percentage (BOP) z test p- value
BOP % Right (SRP) 68 Baseline 77.985 1.739 0.005 (HS)
After one month 47.975
Left (SRP + glucosite) 68 Baseline 73.48 2.214 0.000 (HS)
After one month 22.995
HS=highly significant at P<0.01

Table 1: Statistical difference of bleeding on probing among visits in both sides.

Table 2 show the statistical difference of bleeding on probing among right side (SRP) and left side (SRP with glucosite) after one month of treatment. The means percentage were (47.975), (22.995) for right and left sides respectively and the results were found to be of significant difference (p<0.05).

Variable no. of sites Sides percentage z test p value
BOP % 136 Right 47.975 1.423 0.035 (S)
Left 22.995

Table 2: The statistical difference of bleeding on probing among sides after one month treatment.

Table 3 demonstrate mean, median, SD, minimum and maximum of anaerobic bacterial viable count (CFU\ml) X 103 for right side (SRP) and statistical difference between visits. The mean at baseline was (25.16) while it became (11.65) after one month of treatment and the results were found to be of highly significant difference (p<0.01).

  Median Mean ± S.D. Min. Max. t-test p-value
Baseline 22.838 25.16 9.45 14.92 49.36 5.644 0.000 (HS)
After one month 10.838 11.65 5 4.27 26.29
HS=highly significant at P<0.01

Table 3: Descriptive analysis and intra group comparison of anaerobic bacterial viable count (CFU\ml) × 103 for right side (SRP).

Table 4 demonstrate mean, median, SD, minimum and maximum of anaerobic bacterial viable count (CFU\ml)×103 for left side (SRP with glucosite) and statistical difference between visits. The mean at baseline was (23.715) while it became (1.495) after one month of treatment and the results were found to be of highly significant difference (p<0.01).

  Median Mean ± S.D. Min. Max. t-test p-value
Baseline 21.19 23.715 8.445 13.45 47.27 11.222 0.000 (HS)
After one month 0.1425 1.495 2.661 0.095 8.605    
HS=highly significant at P<0.01

Table 4: Descriptive analysis and intra group comparison of anaerobic bacterial viable count (CFU\ml) ×103 for left side (SRP combined with glucosite).

Table 5 illustrates intergroup comparison of anaerobic bacterial viable count (CFU\ml) X 103 between right and left sides after one month of treatment. The means were (11.65), (1.495) for right and left sides respectively and the results were found to be of highly significant difference (p<0.01).

Variable t-test Df p-value
CFU anaerobic 4.804 38 0.000 (HS)
HS=highly significant at P<0.01

Table 5: Intergroup comparison of anaerobic bacterial viable count (CFU\ml) × 103 between right and left sides after one month of treatment.

Discussion

Local delivery agents offer the advantages of high concentrations at the target site with reduced dosage, fewer applications, and high patient acceptability. Thus, adjunctive use of local drug delivery may provide a beneficial response, especially in specific areas where conventional forms of therapy might fail [26].

The result of the present study showed that the clinical parameter (BOP) in addition to microbial results were improved significantly on day 30 as compared to zero day and a positive therapeutic role was achieved for both sides in the split mouth study. This decreasing in BOP scores in sites treated with combined SRP and glucosite, also its obvious in intergroup and intragroup levels and this comes in agreement with many studies where they study the effect of either CHX alone or H2O2 alone. These studies including Heasman et al., Cosyn et al., Sahebjam et al., Gottumukkala et al., Deas et al., Lecic 2016. [21,27-31].

The different in protocol and formulation of CHX might explain the variation with Paolantonio, et al. who reported that no significant effect of adjunctive use of CHX treatment with SRP [20]. The inter comparison between both sides in the split mouth study revealed that there were significant differences in microbiological outcomes after one month of treatment. This finding matched well with Rosling, et al. Nandini, et al. [32,33]. While disagree with Wennstrom, et al. who reported that irrigation with chlorhexidine or hydrogen peroxide did not induce any changes in total viable counts in periodontal pockets. This difference in results could be caused by protocol of study, intervals and measurements [17].

Since the high viscosity of a gel, one would expect a lower clearance of the active ingredient from periodontal pockets, thereby further promoting pharmacotherapeutic effects.

The antimicrobial effects of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) have been studied both in vitro and in vivo and resulted that it released oxygen which has some bactericidal [16,34] at low concentrations, which has long been used as an oral debriding agent and wound cleanser, also has an extensive history of topical application in mouth rinses and antiseptic gels, with long-term safety record[35] besides altering the biofilm that result in reduced host inflammatory response [10]. Chlorhexidine (CHX) it is a broad-spectrum bactericidal agent. Its propensity to bind to the surface of tissues offers a long-lasting antimicrobial effect causing reduction in pellicle formation, alteration of bacterial adherence to teeth [36]. Shahriari, et al. confirmed the synergistic effect between chlorhexidine and hydrogen peroxide [37].

Conclusion

The results of the study indicated that SRP with glucosite or SRP alone improved clinical and microbiological outcomes. Glucosite gel as an adjunct to scaling and root planning significantly reduced bleeding on probing and total viable anaerobic bacteria when compared with scaling and root planning alone.

References

Author Info

Ahmed Kareem1*, Basima Ghafory1 and Abbas S Al-Mizraqchi2

1Department of Periodontics, College of Dentistry, University of Baghdad, Iraq
2Department of Microbiology, College of Dentistry, University of Baghdad, Iraq
 

Citation: Ahmed Kareem, Basima Ghafory, Abbas S Al-Mizraqchi, Efficacy of Intra Periodontal Pocket Application with Combined Chlorhexidine and Hydrogen Peroxide on the Bleeding on Probing and Anaerobic Bacterial Viable Count, J Res Med Dent Sci, 2020, 8(1): 125-131.

Received Date: Jan 04, 2020 / Accepted Date: Jan 28, 2020 /