Efficacy of a Hyaluronic Acid‐Based Gel Versus 0.20% Chlorhexidine in Nonsurgical Periodontal Therapy: A Single‐Blind Randomized Clinical Trial
Rattachement africain : it. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
OBJECTIVE: To compare the adjunctive efficacy of a hyaluronic acid (HA) gel with 0.20% chlorhexidine (CHX) during nonsurgical periodontal therapy in periodontal patients over 6 months. METHODS: A single-blind, randomized, controlled trial included 40 healthy, nonsmoking adults with periodontitis. After supra- and subgingival debridement, patients used either HA gel (Aftoral; hyaluronic acid with glycerophosphoinositol and xylitol) or CHX mouthwash (Unidea; 0.20% chlorhexidine digluconate) once daily for 15 days at each time recall appointment. Clinical parameters-probing pocket depth (PPD, primary outcome), plaque control record (PCR), bleeding on probing (BoP), gingival recession (GR), tooth mobility (TM), clinical attachment level (CAL), and satisfaction (VAS)-were measured at baseline, 1, 3, and 6 months by a blinded examiner. Nonparametric tests were applied with significance at p < 0.05. RESULTS: HA showed greater PPD reduction than CHX at 3 and 6 months (-0.44 mm vs. -0.26 mm; p < 0.01). PCR and BoP decreased more in the HA group (p < 0.05), while CAL gain was higher (-0.43 mm vs. -0.21 mm; p < 0.05). GR, TM, and VAS showed no differences. No adverse events occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Adjunctive HA gel improved PPD, PCR, BoP, and CAL compared with CHX, confirming safety, and clinical benefit.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Efficacy of a Hyaluronic Acid‐Based Gel Versus 0.20% Chlorhexidine in Nonsurgical Periodontal Therapy: A Single‐Blind Randomized Clinical Trial
- Date Crossref
- 15/04/2026
- Éditeur
- Wiley
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.