Study of Conventional and Advanced Surgical Techniques in the Treatment of Gum Disease

A comparative clinical and radiographical evaluation of conventional and microsurgical open flap debridement in the treatment of chronic periodontitis A split-mouth randomized controlled trial - NIL

Status

Active, not recruiting

Phases

Phase 2

Study type

Interventional

Source

CTRI

Registry ID

CTRI/2026/04/108660

Enrollment

Registered

2026-04-20

Start date

Unknown

Completion date

Unknown

Last updated

2026-04-27

For informational purposes only — not medical advice. Sourced from public registries and may not reflect the latest updates. Terms

Conditions

Health Condition 1: K053- Chronic periodontitis

Interventions

Intervention1: intervention: on other quadrant Kirkland flap with microsurgical flap surgery Control Intervention1: Group 1: on one quadrant Kirkland with conventional flap surgery

Eligibility

Inclusion criteria

Inclusion criteria: Pocket probing depth 4 to 7 mm Relative attachment level 1 to 4 mm Radiographic evidence of horizontal bone loss. Patients who demonstrated acceptable oral hygiene prior to surgical therapy. Patients willing to participate in study.

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion criteria: Patient with history of aggressive periodontitis. Vertical bone defects/ furcation defects requiring periodontal regeneration. History of known systemic diseases like hypertension, diabetes, HIV, Hepatitis, bone metabolic disorders, radiation therapy, immunosuppressive therapy, cancer, blood disorders. Medications known to affect the outcomes of periodontal therapy. Patients who had undergone any periodontal therapy in the preceding 6 months. Pregnant or lactating women. Use of tobacco in any form.

Design outcomes

Primary

Measure	Time frame
To evaluate and compare probing pocket depth reduction following microsurgical and conventional periodontal flap surgery. To assess and compare relative attachment level gain between the two surgical techniques. Timepoint: 1 week, 4 weeks, 3 months, 6 months	—

Secondary

Measure	Time frame
To evaluate and compare the changes in gingival recession at baseline and at postoperative follow-up periods following microsurgical and convention periodontal flap surgery. To compare the gingival inflammation using gingival index following both procedures. To assess plaque control using plaque index in both groups. To evaluate postoperative wound healing using Landry healing index. To compare pain with VAS scale and patient comfort using patient satisfactory score between microsurgical and conventional flap surgery.Timepoint: 1 week, 4 weeks, 3 months, 6 months	—

Measure

Time frame

To evaluate and compare the changes in gingival recession at baseline and at postoperative follow-up periods following microsurgical and convention periodontal flap surgery. To compare the gingival inflammation using gingival index following both procedures. To assess plaque control using plaque index in both groups. To evaluate postoperative wound healing using Landry healing index. To compare pain with VAS scale and patient comfort using patient satisfactory score between microsurgical and conventional flap surgery.Timepoint: 1 week, 4 weeks, 3 months, 6 months

—

Countries

India

Contacts

Public ContactDr Chandrashekar B

College of Dental Science and hospital

drchanduperio@yahoo.com7093826756

Outcome results

None listed

Source: CTRI (via WHO ICTRP) · Data processed: May 1, 2026