الفهرس 
IntroductionOnly 14 pages are availabe for public view
 |  | from | 134 |  |  |
| | | from | 134 | | |
Abstract
Summary
Dental esthetic needs have increased in recent years with a greater demand for a pleasant appearance; including a healthy set of dentitions but also esthetically improved gingival appearance, especially when it is located in the anterior labial region. Physiologic gingival hyperpigmentation affects numerous people of different ethnic backgrounds.
Gingival depigmentation is defined as a periodontal plastic surgical procedure that is aimed at removing the pigmented gingiva and methods aimed at masking the pigmented gingiva. Techniques of gingival depigmentation can be classified as; chemical methods mainly by ascorbic acids, surgical methods, electrosurgery, cryosurgery, radiosurgery, and lasers.
The study was conducted on ten patients seeking treatment for their gingival hyperpigmentation for aesthetic reasons. A total number of 20 quadrants of facial gingival hyperpigmentation were treated, two in each patient in a split-mouth technique.
• group I (Glutathione): Included ten quadrants that were treated with intramucosal field injection of glutathione technique for gingival depigmentation and was considered as the study group.
• group II (LASER): Included ten quadrants that were treated with laser technique for gingival depigmentation and was considered as a control group.
The clinical outcomes were assessed 3 times for each patient: at baseline (pre-operative), one, and three, months post-operatively Clinical assessment was done by measuring the pigment surface area SA and the intensity of recurred pigment using DOPI, and subjective assessment of the results was done through using patient satisfaction questionnaire.
There was no improvement in the mean DOPI sore with the injectable GLU (group I) while with laser (group II), there was a significant decrease in the mean of DOPI from baseline (2.66±0.72) to (0.79±0.40) 3 months after treatment. The mean % of Surface Area decreased insignificantly from baseline (5.99±2.79) to 3 months (4.62±2.40) after treatment in group I (GLU). While in group II, there was a significant decrease from baseline (5.90±1.74) to 3 months (2.23±1.41) in group II (LASER). There was a significant difference in MAF on comparing group I & II to being (1.62±0.56) (0.73±0.30) respectively after a three-month follow up there was a higher percentage of reduction among group II than group I. There was also a reduction in MAF among group I from baseline (1.76±0.43) to (1.62±0.56) after 3 months of treatment but it was non-significant.
According to the satisfaction questionnaire, neither of the treatment modalities caused any pain over the course of the procedure. All patients in group II were satisfied with cosmetic changes and it met their expectations, although 12.5% only in the group I were satisfied with the results