Skip to main content
OpenTrials
Not Yet Recruiting

NCT Number: NCT07487285

A Non-inferiority Study of Laser Combined With Ultrasonic Debridement Therapy (LCUDT) Versus Manual Combined With Ultrasonic Debridement Therapy (MCUDT) in the Treatment of Periodontitis

The rate of periodontal health among adults and the elderly in China is less than 10%, with the prevalence of severe periodontitis reaching 30.6% in those aged 35 and above. While conventional periodontal treatment (ultrasonic combined with manual subgingival scaling) is effective, it has significant drawbacks: it is technically demanding, time-consuming, and often causes patients considerable pain and discomfort. This can lead to poor treatment compliance, postoperative tissue damage, bleeding, and root sensitivity.Lasers, such as the Nd:YAG laser, offer advantages like antibacterial effects and minimally invasive debridement. Combining ultrasonic with laser therapy may improve patient comfort, but there is currently insufficient evidence to prove that its clinical efficacy is non-inferior to traditional manual scaling.This study aims to compare the clinical efficacy, patient acceptance, and postoperative recovery between "ultrasonic combined with laser debridement" and "ultrasonic combined with manual mechanical debridement."

Not Yet Recruiting

Trial opening soon.

Get Notified

Key information

Age range

18 year and older

Sex eligibility

All sexes

Study type

Interventional

Phase

Not applicable

Primary location

The Second Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang University School of Medicine

Hangzhou, Zhejiang, 310000, China

About this study

The periodontal health rate in the adult and elderly groups in China is less than 10%, with a prevalence of severe periodontitis as high as 30.6% among adults aged 35 and above. The primary treatment goal of periodontitis is to control infection by removing dental plaque and calculus, preventing disease progression. Therefore, periodontal debridement is the most fundamental treatment required for every periodontitis patient. Although ultrasonic combined with manual subgingival scaling demonstrates good clinical efficacy in periodontitis treatment, it also has some significant drawbacks. First, the use of manual instruments requires higher technical skills and is time-consuming, especially when dealing with complex root surfaces. Second, the manual scaling process is relatively uncomfortable, and severe pain may prompt some patients to require analgesics or even refuse treatment, particularly in cases of moderate to severe periodontitis. Factors such as past dental anxiety can amplify this pain response, affecting treatment compliance. Additionally, manual scaling may cause damage to periodontal tissues in the treatment area, especially when operating in the subgingival region, where significant mechanical trauma can lead to postoperative discomfort, pain, and root surface sensitivity. This trauma not only affects the patient's treatment experience but may also reduce the regenerative capacity of gingival tissues after treatment. Moreover, postoperative bleeding and root surface roughness following manual scaling increase the risk of infection and complications. Conventional periodontal basic treatment typically involves ultrasonic combined with manual mechanical debridement, but due to the aforementioned issues, many patients have limited acceptance of manual subgingival scaling. This fear or resistance affects treatment compliance, ultimately impacting the prognosis of periodontitis patients. The technical difficulty of manual subgingival scaling also limits the promotion and application of this periodontal debridement technique. Therefore, there is an urgent need for an alternative technology that can effectively treat periodontitis while improving patient comfort and being easily mastered by clinicians. In recent years, lasers have gained widespread attention due to their localized antibacterial and hemostatic effects, as well as their ability to reduce inflammatory reactions. Nd:YAG lasers, a type of near-infrared laser, excel in sterilization, hemostasis, and tissue ablation, and have become an auxiliary treatment for periodontal disease. The minimally invasive debridement technique combining ultrasonic and laser has shown promising potential in treating periodontitis, particularly in enhancing patient comfort and reducing postoperative discomfort. However, there is still insufficient evidence to prove its non-inferiority in clinical efficacy compared to traditional ultrasonic combined with manual scaling. This study aims to compare the clinical efficacy, patient acceptance, and postoperative recovery between ultrasonic combined with laser debridement and ultrasonic combined with manual mechanical debridement through a muti-center randomized controlled trial, thereby providing a more scientific basis for periodontal disease treatment.This study was conducted in multiple centers using a stratified design, covering three provincial-level tertiary hospitals and three primary hospitals. The study adopts a split design (self controlled left and right sides) and plans to include at least 174 patients.

Who can participate

Healthy volunteers accepted: No

Only the study team can determine whether someone qualifies for participation.

Inclusion criteria

  • Age ≥ 18 years old
  • Diagnosed with stage III-IV periodontitis, with at least 4 affected teeth on each side (left and right) having probing depth ≥ 5 mm
  • No periodontal basic treatment (e.g., scaling, root planing, flap surgery) performed within the past 6 months
  • Able to understand the study procedures, provide informed consent, and comply with protocol requirements
  • At least 10 remaining teeth on either side of one jaw (maxilla or mandible)

Exclusion criteria

  • Unstable or uncontrolled systemic diseases, including but not limited to progressive liver disease, active infectious disease, severe trauma, renal failure, rheumatoid arthritis, hematological disease, mental disorder, or diabetes mellitus
  • Presence of an implanted pacemaker
  • Pregnancy or lactation
  • Malignant tumors, or undergoing radiotherapy, chemotherapy, targeted therapy, or bisphosphonate treatment
  • Undergoing orthodontic treatment or those who have received orthodontic treatment within the past six months
  • Smokers

Treatment and study plan

Experimental: Laser Combined with Ultrasonic Debridement Therapy

Procedure

According to the International Federation of Dentistry (FDI) system, the patient's mouth is divided into two regions - left and right. The treatment is carried out in two stages: the first stage involves randomly applying either the minimally invasive periodontal debridement technique using ultrasound and laser or the traditional debridement technique using ultrasound and manual methods to the left/right regions of the patient's mouth; the second stage uses another method to treat the other region. Depending on the severity of periodontitis, the treatment can be completed in one session or in two sessions for the left and right sides.

Active Comparator: Manual Combined with Ultrasonic Debridement Therapy

Procedure

According to the International Federation of Dentistry (FDI) system, the patient's mouth is divided into two regions - left and right. The treatment is carried out in two stages: the first stage involves randomly applying either the minimally invasive periodontal debridement technique using ultrasound and laser or the traditional debridement technique using ultrasound and manual methods to the left/right regions of the patient's mouth; the second stage uses another method to treat the other region. Depending on the severity of periodontitis, the treatment can be completed in one session or in two sessions for the left and right sides.

Primary outcomes

  1. Pocket Probing Depth (PPD)

    Time frame: Pre-treatment (baseline), Follow up evaluation at 1 week, 6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months after treatment

    PPD is measured from the gingival margin to the base of the pocket using a periodontal probe. Measurements will be taken at six sites per tooth (mesiobuccal, mid-buccal, distobuccal, mesiolingual, mid-lingual, distolingual). The outcome will be reported as the improvement amount (ΔPPD) at the sites with probing depth (PPD) ≥ 5mm.

Secondary outcomes

  1. clinical attachment level (CAL)

    Time frame: Pre-treatment (baseline), Follow up evaluation at 1 week, 6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months after treatment

    CAL is the distance from the Cemento-Enamel Junction (CEJ) to the base of the pocket, measured with a periodontal probe. It indicates the historical loss of periodontal support. Measurements at six sites per tooth. The outcome will be reported as the mean CAL in millimeters per patient for all measured sites, and the improvement amount (ΔCAL) at the sites with probing depth (PPD) ≥ 5mm.

  2. plaque index (PI)

    Time frame: Pre-treatment (baseline), Follow-up evaluations were conducted at 6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months after the treatment.

    The PI assesses the thickness of plaque at the gingival margin. Four sites per tooth (mesial, distal, buccal, lingual) are scored from 0 (no plaque) to 3 (abundance of plaque). A lower score indicates better oral hygiene. The outcome will be reported as the mean PI score per patient across all examined sites.

  3. bleeding index (BI)

    Time frame: Pre-treatment (baseline), Follow-up evaluations were conducted at 6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months after the treatment.

    The BI assesses gingival inflammation by recording bleeding upon gentle probing. Each tooth is probed at four sites (mesial, distal, buccal, lingual) and scored as 0 (no bleeding within 30 seconds) or 1 (bleeding present). A lower score indicates healthier gingiva. The outcome will be reported as the mean BI score per patient (percentage of bleeding sites).

  4. Root surface hypersensitivity assessed by a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS)

    Time frame: Pre-treatment (baseline), Follow-up evaluations were conducted 1 week, 6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months after the treatment.

    Participants rate their level of tooth sensitivity to cold air/water on a 100-mm horizontal VAS, where 0 mm = "No pain" and 100 mm = "Unbearable pain". A lower score indicates less sensitivity. The outcome will be reported as the mean VAS score (mm) per patient.

  5. Microbial composition of subgingival plaque (relative abundance of key periodontal pathogens)

    Time frame: Pre-treatment (baseline), Follow up evaluation at 1 week, 6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months after treatment

    Subgingival plaque samples will be collected from pre-selected deep pockets. Microbial composition (e.g., relative abundance of Porphyromonas gingivalis, Treponema denticola, Tannerella forsythia) will be analyzed via 16S rRNA gene sequencing or specific PCR. The outcome will be reported as the change in relative abundance (%) of target pathogens from baseline.

  6. Tooth mobility

    Time frame: Pre-treatment (baseline), Follow up evaluation at 1 week, 6 weeks, 3 months and 6 months after treatment

    I degree; mesiodistal direction mobility is recorded as II degree; vertical mobility is recorded as III degree.

Study contacts

Contact information is provided by the study sponsor or research team.

Sponsors and collaborators

Lead sponsor

Second Affiliated Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University

Other

Registry information

Important dates

Study start
2026
Primary completion
2027
Study completion
2027
First posted
Mar 23, 2026
Registry last updated
Apr 13, 2026

OpenTrials presents study information sourced from ClinicalTrials.gov. The official registry record should be consulted for the latest information.

View the official ClinicalTrials.gov record (opens in a new tab)

This listing is for discovery and informational purposes only. It is not medical advice, does not guarantee that a study is recruiting, and does not determine eligibility. Contact the study team and a qualified healthcare professional when considering participation.

Published trials that share one or more normalized conditions with this study.