Bulletin of Stomatology and Maxillofacial Surgery
ISSN 1829-006X
2025; 313–319
Shared with The Gufo

COMPARISON BETWEEN STANDARD PROTOCOL AND GUIDED BIOFILM THERAPY IN PROFESSIONAL ORAL HYGIENE

Amico Cesare*, Eva Andreini, Polici Prunela, Noor Toufiq, Gorassini Francesca

Department of Biomedical and Dental Sciences, Morphological and Functional Images, University of Messina, 98100 Messina, Italy · U.O.C. of Dentistry “Fra G.B. Orsenigo” - San Pietro Fatebenefratelli Hospital, Rome, Italy · Department of Medical Sciences, Catholic University Our Lady of Good Counsel, Tirana – Albania · Department of Dental Research Cell, Dr. D. Y. Patil Dental College & Hospital, Dr. D. Y. Patil Vidyapeeth (Deemed to be University), Pimpri, Pune 411018, India · FiDent, Centro Medico Odontoiatrico, 89121 Reggio di Calabria, Italy6Department of Clinical Science and Translational Medicine - University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy.

Received: 2026-04-08 · Published: 2025-06-30

© 2025 The Author(s) and the original publisher.

CC BY-NC 4.0 This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
Shared article.
Original title
COMPARISON BETWEEN STANDARD PROTOCOL AND GUIDED BIOFILM THERAPY IN PROFESSIONAL ORAL HYGIENE
Authors
Amico Cesare, Eva Andreini, Polici Prunela, Noor Toufiq, Gorassini Francesca
Source journal
Bulletin of Stomatology and Maxillofacial Surgery
Published
2025-06-30
Licence
Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International
Original
https://doi.org/10.58240/1829006X-2025.21.5-313

Abstract

Background: Professional oral hygiene is pivotal in preventing periodontal disease by eliminating supragingival and subgingival biofilm and calculus. While traditional methods are effective, they may induce discomfort and tissue trauma. Guided Biofilm Therapy (GBT) is a minimally invasive protocol designed to optimize biofilm removal while improving patient comfort and operator ergonomics. Aim: This study compares the Standard Protocol and GBT in terms of clinical efficacy, patient-reported comfort, treatment duration, and operator experience. Materials and Methods: The Present in vitro study utilized six subjects’ blood and was centrifugated. T-PRF clots were prepared, and TI/ NE gel extracts were injected and compared with T-PRF alone to check the release of Vit C, Az, and IGF 1 at 6hours, 72 hours (3rd), 7th, and 14th day. For statistical analysis, a paired t-test and ANOVA were performed. P value <0.05 was considered statistically significant. Results: Over 98% of patients treated with GBT reported reduced or absent pain compared to traditional methods. GBT reduced treatment time by approximately 15% and was associated with improved plaque control, reduced bleeding, and lower probing depths. Operators reported reduced fatigue and improved ergonomics with GBT instrumentation. Conclusions: GBT offers a clinically effective and patient-friendly alternative to conventional prophylaxis, combining enhanced comfort with efficient biofilm management. These findings support the integration of GBT into routine oral hygiene practice to optimize clinical outcomes and patient compliance.
1 / ? 100% Open in new tab Download Cite

Loading the full text…

Download Follow Updates