## 4 Discussion
's [23] study, which involved patients with peri-implant mucositis, highlighted that both the Chlorokinetic and NitrAdineTM groups showed improvements in clinical periodontal parameters (excluding PD) after SRP and even showed that the GI and full-mouth bleeding scores for the NitrAdineTM group were significantly better than those of the Chlorexidine group. On the other hand, [PERSON] and [PERSON] [14] observed that both an SRP-plus-NitrAdineTM-based periodontal dressing-plus-anticrobial solution group and an SRP-only group showed statistically significant reductions in the GI, PD, and CAL values from baseline to follow-up visits at 30 days, but no significant differences were observed in the inter-group comparison at 30 days. [PERSON] et al. [24] reported that the application of a periodontal dressing immediately after non-surgical mechanical therapy may be helpful in improving short-term clinical outcomes, but more controlled studies are needed to confirm this finding. The difference between the results of these two studies indicates that the follow-up times for monitoring periodontal wound healing, possibly after SRP, vary. The participants were monitored for possible side effects from the beginning of the study until the last day of treatment. For spontaneously reported and directly observed side effects, anamnesis was taken from all patients at each clinical visit, and clinical examinations were performed. No patients stopped working due to side effects. The research process was well tolerated by all participants. In other clinical studies using NitrAdineTM-basedmaterials [10; 13; 14], the participants reported no serious side effects. On the other hand, when evaluating the side effects, participants were asked whether they have any complaints about the solution during this process at each visit. We believe that a multiple-choice questionnaire would be more effective in assessing the participants' complaints regarding side effects. People with a history of periodontitis are, by nature, at high risk for recurrence. Patients should be aware of this so that they can take necessary precautions and be more regular with their dental check-ups. In addition to the study treatment, periodontal therapy was performed by a professional dentist, and patients should achieve correct domiciliary oral hygiene techniques to maintain periodontal health status. In our study, the modified [PERSON]'s brushing technique using a manual toothbrush and the correct use of interdental brush was shown to the patients. There have been studies reporting that optimal daily home care is achieved using toothpastes [25] containing both hyaluronic acid and lactoferrin and powered toothbrushes [26] with a rotating-oscillating head or sonic head. Patients could be re-informed about the importance of using the right toothpaste and an electrical toothbrush. The results of this feasibility study support the acceptability of a large randomized clinical trial involving patients with gingivitis or periodontitis for improving the results of SRP therapy. This result could be achieved even if all of the predetermined improvements are not always fully met. The achievement of predetermined results does not necessarily indicate the suitability of the research but rather highlights the required methodological changes. In some cases, the contributions of the PerioTabs(r) and results of the placebo effervescent tablets in periodontal recovery were similar. We believed that for gingival inflammatory parameters and PD, the NitrAdineTM formulation, which is known for its antimicrobial ability, would show significant effectiveness compared to the placebo. A further aim of this trial was to observe the suitability of a split-mouth design methodology to test a brushing solution and the other material-method requirements for a definitive clinical trial. From a general perspective, the split-mouth design methodology of procedures to observe the results of different interventions appears to be successful.