Clinical efficacy of periodontal endoscopy-assisted subgingival scaling and root planning and its effect on psychology and quality of life in patients with periodontitis

Objective To investigate the clinical efficacy and effects of periodontal endoscope (PE)-assisted subgingival scaling and root planning (SRP) and traditional SRP on the psychological and quality of life of patients with periodontitis. Methods This study was reviewed and approved by the Ethics Committee, and informed consent was obtained from the patients. Patients with periodontitis who were treated in the Department of Periodontology, Nanjing Stomatological Hospital, Medical School of Nanjing University from April 2018 to December 2022 with residual periodontal pockets (PD ≥ 5 mm) 6 weeks after traditional SRP treatment were enrolled, and the residual periodontal pockets were further treated with PE-assisted SRP (PE+SRP). After 6 weeks of traditional SRP treatment and 3 months of PE+SRP treatment, clinical indicators, including plaque index (PLI), probing depth (PD), clinical attachment loss (CAL) and bleeding on probing (BOP), were measured, and periodontal tissue self-awareness scale scores, oral health impact profile-14 (OHIP-14) score and dental fear scale (DFS) score were collected. Moreover, visual analog scale (VAS) scores were collected after traditional SRP and PE-assisted SRP treatments. Results Twenty-three patients with periodontitis, including 832 sites of 486 affected teeth, were included in the clinical study. Three months after PE+SRP treatment, all clinical periodontal indicators, PLI (t = 9.254, P<0.001), PD (t = 50.724, P<0.001), CAL (t = 22.407, P<0.001) and BOP (t = 9.217, P<0.001), were significantly improved. Compared with traditional SRP (VAS: 2.48 ± 1.70), the pain caused by PE+SRP (VAS: 2.57±1.80) was not significantly different (t = 0,192, P = 0.850). There was no significant difference in the scores of the periodontal tissue self-awareness scale between the two groups (t = 1.485, P = 0.152). The OHIP-14 (SRP: 12.13±7.63; PE+SRP: 10.26 ± 5.25, t = -1.589, P = 0.126) and DFS (SRP: 40.70 ± 12.63; SRP+PE: 41.57 ± 12.61, t = 0.404, P = 0.690) scores were not significantly different. Conclusion All clinical periodontal indicators were significantly improved after PE-assisted SRP treatment of residual periodontal pockets, and compared with traditional SRP, PE-assisted SRP had no negative impact on the quality of life or psychological status of patients with periodontitis. Therefore, PE+SRP can be promoted in clinical practice.