Gingival pigmentation reduction: A novel therapeutic modality

Abstract

Aim:The objective of the present clinical study was to compare the effectiveness of radiofrequency de-epithelialization and conventional (slicing) method in reducing gingival pigmentation on long term basis by split mouth design.Materials and Methods:A total of 28 maxillary gingival units from 4 subjects aged between 15-30 years were considered for this clincal study and the selected gingival units were made plaque free and clinically healthy before subjectiing these sites to one of the procedures. The selected sites were abraded by either the conventional (slicing) method (14 gingival units of 21, 22, 23, 24) or by radiofrequency (14 gingival units of 11, 12, 13, 14). After the procedure periodontal dressing was applied to protect the operated area. After 1 week periodontal dressing was removed and the area was irrigated with saline. Follow up examination was done on 30th, 60th and 90th days to evaluate the recurrence of pigmentation, if any.Results:It was obsereved that, sites operated with conventional (slicing) method, showed higher mean pigmentation than the sites treated with the radioablation during the follow up period of 90 days.Conclusion:When used judiciously, radiofrequency can be clinically valuable, safe and effective method to reduce pigmentation of gingiva.

Phenytoin-induced gingival enlargement

“…Studies have shown that repigmentation could occur from over a month to 7 years later. 4 However, figures 2 and 3 show the treatment rendered (gingivectomy) and systematic follow-up (2 weeks, 3 months, 6 months and 24 months).…”

Radiofrequency: The next step for gingival depigmentation

“…[1] Congratulations to the authors for giving a new insight into the use of radiofrequency to reduce gingival pigmentation. However, we feel that there are some points that may lead to more accurate outcomes in future investigations.…”

“…[2] Mahesh et al . [1] should describe who the outcome evaluator was. For details on pitfalls and limitations of the “split-mouth” design, we refer interested readers to the recent review by Lesaffre et al .…”

“…[1] kindly add the statistical analysis on differences between pre-and post-treatment in “each” patient and between the two treatment methods. The differences of MGPS “alone” seem to be inadequate to conclude that one therapeutic method offers superior benefit or efficacy than the other.…”

“…Although Mahesh et al . [1] demonstrated wonderful outcomes, further well-designed, prospective studies with more patients are necessary to confirm their study results, and treatment safety.…”