Pain Perception and Psychoemotional Responses Across Different Scaling Technologies: A Comparative Pilot Clinical...

Background/Objectives: Scaling is central to non-surgical periodontal therapy; however, it is often perceived as uncomfortable, particularly in periodontitis. Psychological distress may amplify pain and reduce adherence. This comparative pilot study assessed whether ultrasonic technology influences patient-reported pain and psychoemotional status while quantifying the contribution of the periodontal condition and baseline psychological factors. Methods: A monocentric split-mouth design enrolled 42 adults (21 with stage I-III, grade B periodontitis; 21 periodontally healthy). Maxillary scaling was performed with Device nr.1 and mandibular scaling was performed with Device nr.2, and no anesthesia was used. Pain was measured immediately post-procedure using the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire (SF-MPQ; sensory and affective subscales). Psychological status was assessed pre- and post-session with the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10) and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (RSES). Construct validity was examined via exploratory factor analysis. The Mann-Whitney U, Wilcoxon signed-rank, Spearman's ρ, and Cliff's δ were applied (α = 0.05). Results: The overall pain was low. Between devices, sensory pain did not differ, whereas affective pain was modestly lower with the "No Pain" device (p = 0.017). Periodontitis was the dominant determinant of pain: higher sensory (U = 509.00, p = 0.0004; δ = 0.42) and affective scores (U = 290.00, p < 0.0001; δ = 0.67) occurred irrespective of device, while device-related effects were negligible (sensory δ = -0.03) to small (affective δ = 0.27). Somatic distress correlated with affective pain (ρ = 0.25, p = 0.023) and was borderline for sensory pain (ρ = 0.21, p = 0.060); emotional distress showed no significant associations. During the session, K10 scores decreased and RSES values increased, indicating immediate psychoemotional benefits. Conclusions: Pain perception during scaling is shaped primarily by periodontal status and psychological distress rather than by ultrasonic technology per se. Although the electronic module to dynamically adjust the power of the instrument technology may attenuate the affective component, standardized atraumatic techniques and routine psychosocial screening are likely to yield greater gains. The observed short-term improvements in distress and self-esteem support integrating patient-reported outcomes into individualized, patient-centered periodontal care.