Treatment effects and periodontal status of chronic periodontitis after routine Er:YAG laser-assisted therapy

Table 1 Comparison of treatment effectiveness in the two groups, n (%)

Groups	Cases	Significant effect	Valid	Invalid	Total effectiveness
Study group	53	27 (50.94)	23 (43.40)	3 (5.66)	50 (94.34)
Control group	53	20 (37.74)	22 (41.51)	11 (20.75)	42 (79.25)
χ2					5.267
P value					0.022

Table 2 Comparison of periodontal status in the two groups (mean ± SD)

Group	Cases	PD in mm	CAL in mm	SBI	GI	PLI
Before therapy
Study group	53	5.28 ± 1.08	4.81 ± 0.79	3.37 ± 0.59	1.38 ± 0.40	2.05 ± 0.65
Control group	53	5.51 ± 1.14	5.09 ± 0.83	3.51 ± 0.62	1.41 ± 0.37	1.98 ± 0.70
t		1.344	1.779	1.280	0.401	0.533
P value		0.182	0.078	0.204	0.689	0.595
After therapy
Study group	53	2.97 ± 0.38	2.71 ± 0.64	2.07 ± 0.32	0.51 ± 0.11	1.29 ± 0.34
Control group	53	3.71 ± 0.42	3.60 ± 0.71	2.80 ± 0.44	0.78 ± 0.23	1.70 ± 0.51
t		9.512	6.778	9.768	7.710	4.605
P value		0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000	0.000

CAL: Clinical attachment loss; GI: Gingival index; PD: periodontal probing depth; PLI: Dental plaque index; SBI: Sulcular bleeding index;.

Table 3 Comparison of inflammatory factors in gingival crevicular fluid from the two groups (mean ± SD)

Groups	Cases	TNF-α in ng/mL	IL-6 in ng/mL	IL-8 in pg/mL
Before therapy
Study group	53	7.82 ± 3.43	11.67 ± 2.59	12.12 ± 3.19
Control group	53	9.06 ± 3.89	12.13 ± 2.97	10.99 ± 3.30
t		1.741	0.850	1.792
P value		0.085	0.397	0.076
After therapy
Study group	53	2.04 ± 0.89	4.60 ± 1.26	3.15 ± 1.08
Control group	53	3.11 ± 1.07	6.25 ± 1.41	4.64 ± 1.23
t		5.597	7.182	6.627
P value		0.000	0.000	0.000

IL: Interleukin; TNF-α: Tumor necrosis factor-α.

Table 4 Comparison of colony forming units in the two groups (mean ± SD, × 10⁴/mL)

Groups	Cases	Before therapy	After therapy	t	P value
Study group	53	367.91 ± 74.32	36.09 ± 15.26	31.840	0.000
Control group	53	371.09 ± 80.25	45.89 ± 18.08	28.780	0.000
t		0.212	2.988
P value		0.833	0.004