Comparative evaluation of the effect of non-surgical periodontal therapy on natural teeth versus different types of crowns in mild chronic periodontitis patients

Abstract: - Introduction Periodontal health is vital for restoration longevity. While PFM crowns have been the traditional gold standard, their metal substructure can limit aesthetics and potentially irritate tissues. All-ceramic crowns (e.g., Zirconia, Lithium Disilicate) have emerged as aesthetic, biocompatible alternatives. This study evaluates how these different materials affect periodontal healing following non-surgical therapy. Aim and Objective To compare plaque accumulation, gingival inflammation, probing pocket depth (PPD), and clinical attachment loss (CAL) between Full Ceramic crowns, PFM crowns, and natural teeth following non-surgical periodontal therapy. Materials and Methods: - Fifty subjects (ages 25–60) with mild chronic periodontitis and multiple prosthetic crowns were recruited. Clinical parameters (PI, GI, PPD, and CAL) were recorded at baseline and four weeks after scaling and root planing (SRP). Measurements were taken at six sites per tooth using a UNC manual probe. Data were analyzed using paired t-tests and one-way ANOVA. Observation and Results All groups showed a statistically significant reduction in PPD (p < 0.001), with All-Ceramic crowns dropping from 5.63 \pm 1.43\text{mm} to 3.37 \pm 1.14\text{mm} and PFM from 5.76 \pm 1.42\text{mm} to 2.92 \pm 1.01\text{mm}. However, only the All-Ceramic group showed a significant reduction in gingival inflammation (GI) and a statistically significant gain in CAL. No significant changes in plaque accumulation (PI) were observed across the groups. Conclusion Non-surgical therapy effectively reduces pocket depths for all restorations. However, All-Ceramic crowns facilitate superior resolution of gingival inflammation and better attachment gains, suggesting higher biocompatibility for long-term periodontal maintenance compared to PFM crowns.