Conventional versus laser gingivectomy in the management of gingival enlargement during orthodontic treatment: a randomized controlled trial

Objectives To compare the use of diode laser with conventional surgery evaluating the effectiveness of gingivectomy as an adjunct to non-surgical periodontal treatment in the management of gingival enlargement (GE) during orthodontic treatment. Trial design Prospective three-arm parallel group randomized clinical trial with 1:1:1 allocation ratio. Methods Sixty subjects (33 males and 27 females), with a mean age of 14.4 ± 1.9 years, were selected according to inclusion criteria: overgrown gingivae on the labial side of the anterior teeth secondary to fixed appliance therapy, six maxillary anterior teeth present, and healthy non-smokers patients. Patients were enrolled in the study and randomly assigned to three groups by a computer-generated randomization list and by a block size of 4. The allocation information was concealed in opaque and sealed envelopes by the statistician. In the first group, all subjects underwent a conventional scalpel gingivectomy of the maxillary anterior sextant. In the second group, all subjects were treated using laser-assisted gingivectomy; while subjects assigned to the third group underwent only non-surgical periodontal treatment and served as control group (CG). The observer who performed all the measurements was blinded to the group assignment. Blinding was obtained by eliminating from the elaboration file every reference to patient group assignment. Intergroup comparisons of changes in the periodontal parameters were conducted at 1, 3, and 6 months using ANOVA with repeated measures and Tukey’s post hoc tests. The significance level was set at P <0.05. Results After 1 month, the TGs showed a significant improvement of all periodontal parameters when compared with the CG. No statistically significant differences were observed between the two TGs. At the 3-month observation, a relapse occurred in the TGs, while the CG showed the greater improvement of soft tissue health. In the 6-month versus 3-month evaluation, no significant differences between the three groups were found for any periodontal measurements. In the long-term evaluation (6 months versus baseline), a significant greater reduction of pockets were found in the TGs when compared with the CG. Conclusions The adjunct use of both scalpel gingivectomy and laser gingivectomy was more effective in controlling gingival inflammation than non-surgical periodontal treatment alone at 1, 3 and 6 months. In the control group, greater improvement in the periodontal parameters were observed within 3 months, depending on a self-care approach for the management of GE.