## 3 Results  
A total of four subjects (G, n = 2; P, n = 2) who met the eligibility criteria were randomly assigned to the PerioTabs(r) or placebo group, having agreed to receive the intended split-mouth design treatment (therapeutic or prophylactic intervention), and they were evaluated. All of the participants attended all of the appointments and completed the study. Participant enrollment commenced and was completed in August 2021. Data collection was conducted between August 2021 and October 2021. Participants were evaluated at the baseline and follow-up days 11 and 40. This feasibility trial ended when the target number of participants completed the study and sufficient data had been obtained. Table 1 shows the baseline demographic and clinical characteristics for each group. The distribution of the diagnostic data is similar between the groups according to medication, and no differences were observed in the clinical periodontal parameters between the participants in their corresponding groups at baseline (Figure 1). An investigator examined each patient who attended the clinic to identify the eligible participants within a four-week period. All four eligible participants who attended our clinic agreed to participate in the study. Figure 2 shows the results of both the therapeutic and prophylactic interventions using PerioTabs(r) compared to placebo in G patients. The efficacy of the (1) PerioTabs(r) alone on the clinic parameters in percentage (%) appears to be similar to that of placebo (PI: 64 vs. 79, 25 vs. 18; GI: 27 vs. 27, 4 vs. 2; PD: 7 vs. 0, 4 vs. 0; BOP: 70 vs. 68, 52 vs. 34; CAL: 7 vs. 0, 4 vs. 0; respectively); (2) prophylactic use of PerioTabs(r) on PI, PD, BOP, and CAL appears to be more successful than that of the placebo after SRP (PI: 64 vs. 79, 2 vs. 41; GI: 27 vs. 27, 0 vs. 4; PD: 7 vs. 0, 0 vs. 0; BOP: 70 vs. 68, 11 vs. 25; CAL: 7 vs. 0, 0 vs. 0; respectively); (3) therapeutic use of PerioTabs(r) as an adjunct to SRP on the BOP parameters appears to  
be more successful than that of a placebo (PI: 50 vs. 91,11 vs. 45; GI: 29 vs. 54, 2 vs. 4; PD: 5 vs. 2, 0 vs. 0; BOP: 64 vs. 77, 11 vs. 32; CAL: 7 vs. 2, 0 vs. 0; respectively); and (4) the prophylactic and therapeutic use of PerioTabs(r) on the healing of the clinical parameters after SRP appears to show similar results (PI: 64 vs. 50, 2 vs. 11; GI: 27 vs. 29, 0 vs. 2; PD: 7 vs. 5, 0 vs. 0; BOP: 69 vs. 64, 11 vs. 10; CAL: 7 vs. 7, 0 vs. 0; respectively). Figure 3 shows the results of both therapeutic and prophylactic interventions using PerioTabs(r) compared to the use of the placebo in the P patients. The efficacy of the (1) PerioTabs(r) alone on the clinic parameters in percentage (%) appears to be similar to that of the placebo. (PI: 79 vs. 83, 75 vs. 63; GI: 30 vs. 6, 25 vs. 6; PD: 41 vs. 42, 34 vs. 42; BOP: 100 vs. 88, 95 vs. 44; CAL: 52 vs. 59, 40 vs. 54; respectively); (2) the prophylactic use of the PerioTabs(r) on GI, BOP, and CAL appears to be more successful than the use of the placebo after SRP (PI: 79 vs. 83, 7 vs. 6; GI: 30 vs. 6, 2 vs. 6; PD: 41 vs. 42, 7 vs. 6; BOP: 100 vs. 88, 9 vs. 38; CAL: 52 vs. 59, 7 vs. 23; respectively); (3) the therapeutic use of the PerioTabs(r) as an adjunct to SRP on the BOP and CAL parameters appears to be more successful than that of the placebo (PI: 57 vs. 83, 4 vs. 2; GI: 25 vs. 13, 0 vs. 6; PD: 34 vs. 48, 2 vs. 4; BOP: 77 vs. 94, 0 vs. 35; CAL: 41 vs. 75, 2 vs. 33; respectively); and (4) the prophylactic and therapeutic use of the PerioTabs(r) on the healing of the clinical parameters after SRP