24628437
OBJECTIVE	Compare the treatment outcome after scaling and root-planing using local anesthesia gel or injected local anesthesia .
METHODS	Thirty-eight patients with periodontitis and good general health were included in a randomized , single-blind , split-mouth clinical trial .
METHODS	Probing depths and clinical attachment levels were recorded at baseline and 6weeks after treatment .
METHODS	Performed treatment procedures were scaling and root planing using two types of local anesthesia for separate treatment appointments .
METHODS	Anesthetics used were intra-pocket lidocaine and prilocaine gel ( 2.5 % each ) and injected articaine ( 1:100,000 adrenaline ) .
METHODS	Type of anesthesia for first appointment was randomized and switched for second appointment .
METHODS	Patients ' pain perception and anesthesia acceptance were recorded on questionnaires .
RESULTS	No influence of applied type of anesthesia could be detected for change of probing pocket depths and clinical attachment level ( p > 0.05 ) .
RESULTS	These findings are valid even for deeper pockets .
RESULTS	Gel-group had significant higher intra-operative pain perception .
RESULTS	In retrospect 69 % of patients favored gel .
CONCLUSIONS	Treatment outcome is not compromised by use of anesthesia gel in comparison to injected anesthesia .
CONCLUSIONS	The same beneficial results for probing pocket depths and clinical attachment gain could be detected .
CONCLUSIONS	The majority of patients prefer local anesthesia gel despite a slightly greater procedural discomfort .

