Efficacy of Injectable Platelet-rich Fibrin Versus Platelet-Rich Plasma As Adjunctive to Scaling and Root Planning in Non-surgical Periodontal Therapy of Periodontitis Patients

It assesses oral hygiene and is based on the recording of soft debris on the teeth, plaque was scored using the plaque indices the Tarski et al Modified Quigley Hein Plaque Index (TQHPI). With the TQHPI, mesial, distal, and mid surfaces of facial and lingual aspects were scored:

0 = no plaque/debris

• = separate flecks of plaque at the cervical margin of the tooth.
• = a thin continuous band of plaque (up to 1 mm) at the cervical margin of the tooth.
• = a band of plaque wider than 1 mm but covering less than one-third of the crown of the tooth.
• = plaque covering at least one-third but less than two-thirds of the crown of the tooth.
• = plaque covering two-thirds or more of the crown of the tooth. The index for the tooth was calculated by adding the scores from the six surfaces of the tooth and dividing them by six. For each patient, a plaque index was calculated by adding up the indices for each of the teeth examined and dividing by the number of these teeth.

In 1971, Muhlemann & Son introduced the SBI, which was defined as follows:

Score 0 gingiva of normal texture and color, no bleeding. Score 1: gingiva normal, bleeding on probing. Score 2: bleeding on probing, change in color, no edema. Score 3: bleeding on probing change in color, slight oedema. Score 4: either: (a) bleeding on probing, change in color, obvious edema or (b) bleeding on probing, obvious edema.

Score 5: bleeding on probing and spontaneous bleeding, change in color, marked edema.

For all groups, the pocket depth measurement was calculated from the gingival margin to the base of the pocket in each quadrant between the first premolar and 1ST molar. It was taken at 6 locations which were mesiofacial, midfacial, distofacial, mesiolingual, midlingual, and distolingual.

To the closest millimeter, the standard William's graded probe was employed. It was inserted parallel to the tooth's long axis with light force; if present, any heavy calculus deposits interfering with measurement were removed.

The measurements were put together before being divided by six to determine the mean value of every tooth.

Following that, the pocket depth value for each patient was calculated by summing the values of all teeth, and then the total number of teeth tested divided by the sum.

For all groups, in each quadrant CAL is measured from the first premolar to the 2nd molar(in mm). By recording six values for every tooth and dividing them by six, the mean value for each tooth was determined. Then, by dividing the total number of teeth inspected by the sum of teeth, we got the mean value of CAL for each patient. If the CEJ landmark is missing because it has been destroyed by dental caries or has been removed by placement of a dental restoration, another fixed reference point can be used to measure attachment loss. Such landmarks might include the apical margin of a restoration or the incisal edge of a tooth. When attachment loss measurements are taken from a fixed landmark other than the CEJ they are called relative attachment loss measurements. Clinical attachment loss or relative attachment loss measurements are the best way to assess the presence or absence of additional periodontal damage

Both periodontal pathogens Porphyromonas gingivalis (Pg) and Prevotella intermedia (PI) were detected within subgingival dental plaque samples at baseline before treatment, 6th, and 12th weeks by semiquantitative culture technique, and the resulting bacteria were identified using (PCR).• Quantification of each organism was done by counting the number of colonies forming units (CFU) on each plate. Because dilutions are based on 1 paper point, the plate count times the dilution factor yielded the total number of organisms per paper point A significant reduction was considered when the CFU/paper point decreased to ≤103; a non-significant reduction was considered when the CFU/paper point was 103-105; and a failure of treatment was considered when the CFU/paper point remained ≥105.