-
Journal of Clinical Periodontology Apr 2015Over the past decades, the placement of dental implants has become a routine procedure in the oral rehabilitation of fully and partially edentulous patients. However,...
AIMS
Over the past decades, the placement of dental implants has become a routine procedure in the oral rehabilitation of fully and partially edentulous patients. However, the number of patients/implants affected by peri-implant diseases is increasing. As there are--in contrast to periodontitis--at present no established and predictable concepts for the treatment of peri-implantitis, primary prevention is of key importance. The management of peri-implant mucositis is considered as a preventive measure for the onset of peri-implantitis. Therefore, the remit of this working group was to assess the prevalence of peri-implant diseases, as well as risks for peri-implant mucositis and to evaluate measures for the management of peri-implant mucositis.
METHODS
Discussions were informed by four systematic reviews on the current epidemiology of peri-implant diseases, on potential risks contributing to the development of peri-implant mucositis, and on the effect of patient and of professionally administered measures to manage peri-implant mucositis. This consensus report is based on the outcomes of these systematic reviews and on the expert opinion of the participants.
RESULTS
Key findings included: (i) meta-analysis estimated a weighted mean prevalence for peri-implant mucositis of 43% (CI: 32-54%) and for peri-implantitis of 22% (CI: 14-30%); (ii) bleeding on probing is considered as key clinical measure to distinguish between peri-implant health and disease; (iii) lack of regular supportive therapy in patients with peri-implant mucositis was associated with increased risk for onset of peri-implantitis; (iv) whereas plaque accumulation has been established as aetiological factor, smoking was identified as modifiable patient-related and excess cement as local risk indicator for the development of peri-implant mucositis; (v) patient-administered mechanical plaque control (with manual or powered toothbrushes) has been shown to be an effective preventive measure; (vi) professional intervention comprising oral hygiene instructions and mechanical debridement revealed a reduction in clinical signs of inflammation; (vii) adjunctive measures (antiseptics, local and systemic antibiotics, air-abrasive devices) were not found to improve the efficacy of professionally administered plaque removal in reducing clinical signs of inflammation.
CONCLUSIONS
Consensus was reached on recommendations for patients with dental implants and oral health care professionals with regard to the efficacy of measures to manage peri-implant mucositis. It was particularly emphasized that implant placement and prosthetic reconstructions need to allow proper personal cleaning, diagnosis by probing and professional plaque removal.
Topics: Dental Cements; Dental Implants; Dental Plaque; Humans; Oral Hygiene; Peri-Implantitis; Periodontal Debridement; Periodontal Index; Primary Prevention; Risk Factors; Smoking; Stomatitis; Toothbrushing
PubMed: 25626479
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.12369 -
International Journal of Dental Hygiene Feb 2022This systematic review and network meta-analysis synthesizes the available clinical evidence concerning efficacy with respect to plaque scores following a brushing... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
AIM
This systematic review and network meta-analysis synthesizes the available clinical evidence concerning efficacy with respect to plaque scores following a brushing action with oscillating-rotating (OR) or high-frequency sonic (HFS) powered toothbrushes (PTB) compared with a manual toothbrush (MTB) as control.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
Databases were searched up to 1 August 2021, for clinical trials that evaluated the efficacy of a PTB with OR or HFS technology compared with an MTB on plaque removal after a single-brushing action and conducted with healthy adult patients. Meta-analysis (MA) and a network meta-analysis (NMA) were performed.
RESULTS
Twenty-eight eligible publications, including 56 relevant comparisons, were retrieved. The overall NMA results for the mean post-brushing score showed a statistically significant difference for the comparison between an OR PTB and an MTB (SMD = -0.43; 95% CI [-0.696;-0.171]). The change in plaque score data showed a significant effect of a PTB over an MTB and OR over HFS. Based on ranking, the OR PTB was highest, followed by the HFS PTB and the MTB.
CONCLUSION
Within the limitations of the present study design, based on the outcome following a single-brushing action, it can be concluded that for dental plaque removal, there is a high certainty for a small effect of a PTB over an MTB. This supports the recommendation to use a powered toothbrush for daily plaque removal. There is moderate certainty for a very small benefit for the use of a powered toothbrush with an OR over an HFS mode of action.
Topics: Adult; Dental Plaque; Dental Plaque Index; Equipment Design; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Single-Blind Method; Toothbrushing
PubMed: 34877772
DOI: 10.1111/idh.12563 -
Journal of Clinical Periodontology Apr 2015Periodontitis is a ubiquitous and irreversible inflammatory condition and represents a significant public health burden. Severe periodontitis affects over 11% of adults,... (Review)
Review
UNLABELLED
Periodontitis is a ubiquitous and irreversible inflammatory condition and represents a significant public health burden. Severe periodontitis affects over 11% of adults, is a major cause of tooth loss impacting negatively upon speech, nutrition, quality of life and self-esteem, and has systemic inflammatory consequences. Periodontitis is preventable and treatment leads to reduced rates of tooth loss and improved quality of life. However, successful treatment necessitates behaviour change in patients to address lifestyle risk factors (e.g. smoking) and, most importantly, to attain and sustain high standards of daily plaque removal, lifelong. While mechanical plaque removal remains the bedrock of successful periodontal disease management, in high-risk patients it appears that the critical threshold for plaque accumulation to trigger periodontitis is low, and such patients may benefit from adjunctive agents for primary prevention of periodontitis.
AIM
The aims of this working group were to systematically review the evidence for primary prevention of periodontitis by preventing gingivitis via four approaches: 1) the efficacy of mechanical self-administered plaque control regimes; 2) the efficacy of self-administered inter-dental mechanical plaque control; 3) the efficacy of adjunctive chemical plaque control; and 4) anti-inflammatory (sole or adjunctive) approaches.
METHODS
Two meta-reviews (mechanical plaque removal) and two traditional systematic reviews (chemical plaque control/anti-inflammatory agents) formed the basis of this consensus.
RESULTS
Data support the belief that professionally administered plaque control significantly improves gingival inflammation and lowers plaque scores, with some evidence that reinforcement of oral hygiene provides further benefit. Re-chargeable power toothbrushes provide small but statistically significant additional reductions in gingival inflammation and plaque levels. Flossing cannot be recommended other than for sites of gingival and periodontal health, where inter-dental brushes (IDBs) will not pass through the interproximal area without trauma. Otherwise, IDBs are the device of choice for interproximal plaque removal. Use of local or systemic anti-inflammatory agents in the management of gingivitis has no robust evidence base. We support the almost universal recommendations that all people should brush their teeth twice a day for at least 2 min. with fluoridated dentifrice. Expert opinion is that for periodontitis patients 2 min. is likely to be insufficient, especially when considering the need for additional use of inter-dental cleaning devices. In patients with gingivitis once daily inter-dental cleaning is recommended and the adjunctive use of chemical plaque control agents offers advantages in this group.
Topics: Anti-Inflammatory Agents; Dental Devices, Home Care; Dental Plaque; Dentifrices; Gingivitis; Humans; Oral Hygiene; Periodontitis; Primary Prevention; Self Care; Toothbrushing
PubMed: 25639826
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.12366 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2019Dental caries (tooth decay) and periodontal diseases (gingivitis and periodontitis) affect the majority of people worldwide, and treatment costs place a significant...
BACKGROUND
Dental caries (tooth decay) and periodontal diseases (gingivitis and periodontitis) affect the majority of people worldwide, and treatment costs place a significant burden on health services. Decay and gum disease can cause pain, eating and speaking difficulties, low self-esteem, and even tooth loss and the need for surgery. As dental plaque is the primary cause, self-administered daily mechanical disruption and removal of plaque is important for oral health. Toothbrushing can remove supragingival plaque on the facial and lingual/palatal surfaces, but special devices (such as floss, brushes, sticks, and irrigators) are often recommended to reach into the interdental area.
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the effectiveness of interdental cleaning devices used at home, in addition to toothbrushing, compared with toothbrushing alone, for preventing and controlling periodontal diseases, caries, and plaque. A secondary objective was to compare different interdental cleaning devices with each other.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 16 January 2019), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2018, Issue 12), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 16 January 2019), Embase Ovid (1980 to 16 January 2019) and CINAHL EBSCO (1937 to 16 January 2019). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that compared toothbrushing and a home-use interdental cleaning device versus toothbrushing alone or with another device (minimum duration four weeks).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently screened searches, selected studies, extracted data, assessed studies' risk of bias, and assessed evidence certainty as high, moderate, low or very low, according to GRADE. We extracted indices measured on interproximal surfaces, where possible. We conducted random-effects meta-analyses, using mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs).
MAIN RESULTS
We included 35 RCTs (3929 randomised adult participants). Studies were at high risk of performance bias as blinding of participants was not possible. Only two studies were otherwise at low risk of bias. Many participants had a low level of baseline gingival inflammation.Studies evaluated the following devices plus toothbrushing versus toothbrushing: floss (15 trials), interdental brushes (2 trials), wooden cleaning sticks (2 trials), rubber/elastomeric cleaning sticks (2 trials), oral irrigators (5 trials). Four devices were compared with floss: interdental brushes (9 trials), wooden cleaning sticks (3 trials), rubber/elastomeric cleaning sticks (9 trials) and oral irrigators (2 trials). Another comparison was rubber/elastomeric cleaning sticks versus interdental brushes (3 trials).No trials assessed interproximal caries, and most did not assess periodontitis. Gingivitis was measured by indices (most commonly, Löe-Silness, 0 to 3 scale) and by proportion of bleeding sites. Plaque was measured by indices, most often Quigley-Hein (0 to 5).
PRIMARY OBJECTIVE
comparisons against toothbrushing aloneLow-certainty evidence suggested that flossing, in addition to toothbrushing, may reduce gingivitis (measured by gingival index (GI)) at one month (SMD -0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.12 to -0.04; 8 trials, 585 participants), three months or six months. The results for proportion of bleeding sites and plaque were inconsistent (very low-certainty evidence).Very low-certainty evidence suggested that using an interdental brush, plus toothbrushing, may reduce gingivitis (measured by GI) at one month (MD -0.53, 95% CI -0.83 to -0.23; 1 trial, 62 participants), though there was no clear difference in bleeding sites (MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.03; 1 trial, 31 participants). Low-certainty evidence suggested interdental brushes may reduce plaque more than toothbrushing alone (SMD -1.07, 95% CI -1.51 to -0.63; 2 trials, 93 participants).Very low-certainty evidence suggested that using wooden cleaning sticks, plus toothbrushing, may reduce bleeding sites at three months (MD -0.25, 95% CI -0.37 to -0.13; 1 trial, 24 participants), but not plaque (MD -0.03, 95% CI -0.13 to 0.07).Very low-certainty evidence suggested that using rubber/elastomeric interdental cleaning sticks, plus toothbrushing, may reduce plaque at one month (MD -0.22, 95% CI -0.41 to -0.03), but this was not found for gingivitis (GI MD -0.01, 95% CI -0.19 to 0.21; 1 trial, 12 participants; bleeding MD 0.07, 95% CI -0.15 to 0.01; 1 trial, 30 participants).Very-low certainty evidence suggested oral irrigators may reduce gingivitis measured by GI at one month (SMD -0.48, 95% CI -0.89 to -0.06; 4 trials, 380 participants), but not at three or six months. Low-certainty evidence suggested that oral irrigators did not reduce bleeding sites at one month (MD -0.00, 95% CI -0.07 to 0.06; 2 trials, 126 participants) or three months, or plaque at one month (SMD -0.16, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.10; 3 trials, 235 participants), three months or six months, more than toothbrushing alone.
SECONDARY OBJECTIVE
comparisons between devicesLow-certainty evidence suggested interdental brushes may reduce gingivitis more than floss at one and three months, but did not show a difference for periodontitis measured by probing pocket depth. Evidence for plaque was inconsistent.Low- to very low-certainty evidence suggested oral irrigation may reduce gingivitis at one month compared to flossing, but very low-certainty evidence did not suggest a difference between devices for plaque.Very low-certainty evidence for interdental brushes or flossing versus interdental cleaning sticks did not demonstrate superiority of either intervention.Adverse eventsStudies that measured adverse events found no severe events caused by devices, and no evidence of differences between study groups in minor effects such as gingival irritation.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Using floss or interdental brushes in addition to toothbrushing may reduce gingivitis or plaque, or both, more than toothbrushing alone. Interdental brushes may be more effective than floss. Available evidence for tooth cleaning sticks and oral irrigators is limited and inconsistent. Outcomes were mostly measured in the short term and participants in most studies had a low level of baseline gingival inflammation. Overall, the evidence was low to very low-certainty, and the effect sizes observed may not be clinically important. Future trials should report participant periodontal status according to the new periodontal diseases classification, and last long enough to measure interproximal caries and periodontitis.
Topics: Dental Caries; Dental Devices, Home Care; Dental Plaque; Gingivitis; Humans; Oral Health; Periodontal Diseases; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 30968949
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012018.pub2 -
Efficacy of sonic and ultrasonic activation during endodontic treatment: a Meta-analysis of studies.Acta Odontologica Scandinavica Nov 2022To ensure a successful endodontic treatment, it is important to have a proper disinfection of the root canal. The current study compares the root canal cleanliness and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVE
To ensure a successful endodontic treatment, it is important to have a proper disinfection of the root canal. The current study compares the root canal cleanliness and smear layer score between sonic and ultrasonic activation.
METHOD
Systematic literature review was implemented, using 12 databases. All studies comparing the efficacy of sonic and ultrasonic activation and reporting at least one outcome of interest were included.
RESULTS
At the apical level, pooling the data in the random-effects model (I=64%, ) revealed a statistically significant lower smear layer score within the sonic activation group (MD-0.48; 95% CI-0.92, -0.04; ). Furthermore, there was a statistically significant lower push-out bond strength value among the sonic group, in contrast to the ultrasonic group at the middle (MD-0.69; 95% CI-1.13, -0.25; ) and at the apical levels (MD-0.78; 95% CI-1.09, -0.46; ) of the root canal.
CONCLUSIONS
Sonic activation accomplished advancement relative to ultrasonic agitation in removing the smear layer, while ultrasonic activation resulted in significant cohesion between the sealers and the dentine tubules, decreasing the vulnerability of apical leakage and tooth fracture.
Topics: Humans; Smear Layer; Root Canal Irrigants; Root Canal Preparation; Dental Pulp Cavity; Ultrasonics; Sodium Hypochlorite; Therapeutic Irrigation; Edetic Acid; Microscopy, Electron, Scanning
PubMed: 35430959
DOI: 10.1080/00016357.2022.2061591 -
Journal of Dentistry Dec 2016We systematically reviewed treatment modalities for MIH-affected molars and incisors. (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
We systematically reviewed treatment modalities for MIH-affected molars and incisors.
DATA
Trials on humans with ≥1 MIH molar/incisor reporting on various treatments were included. Two authors independently searched and extracted records. Sample-size-weighted annual failure rates were estimated where appropriate. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale.
SOURCES
Electronic databases (PubMed, Embase, Cochrane CENTRAL, Google Scholar) were screened, and hand searches and cross-referencing performed.
STUDY SELECTION
Fourteen (mainly observational) studies were included. Ten trials (381 participants) investigated MIH-molars, four (139) MIH-incisors. For molars, remineralization, restorative or extraction therapies had been assessed. For restorative approaches, mean (SD) annual failure rates were highest for fissure sealants (12[6]%) and glass-ionomer restorations (12[2]%), and lowest for indirect restorations (1[3]%), preformed metal crowns (1.3 [2.1]%) and composite restorations (4[3]%). Ony study assessed extraction of molars in young patients (median age 8.2 years), the majority of them without malocclusions, but third molars in development. Spontaneous alignment of second molars was more frequent in the maxilla (55%) than the mandible (47%). For incisors, desensitizing agents successfully managed hypersensitivity. Micro-abrasion and composite veneers improved aesthetics.
CONCLUSIONS
Few, mainly moderate to high-risk-studies investigated treatment of MIH. Remineralization or sealants seem suitable for MIH-molars with limited severity and/or hypersensitivity. For severe cases, restorations with composites or indirect restorations or preformed metal crowns seem suitable. Prior to tooth extraction as last resort factors like the presence of a general malocclusion, patients' age and the status of neighboring teeth should be considered. No recommendations can be given for MIH-incisors.
CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE
Dentists need to consider the specific condition of each tooth and the needs and expectations of patients when deciding how to manage MIH. Strong recommendations are not possible based on the current evidence.
Topics: Dental Calculus; Dental Enamel Hypoplasia; Humans; Incisor; Maxilla; Molar; Pit and Fissure Sealants
PubMed: 27693779
DOI: 10.1016/j.jdent.2016.09.012 -
Dental Clinics of North America Oct 2015Also note that structured abstracts are not allowed per journal style: What is the effect of a mouthwash containing various active chemical ingredients on plaque control... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Also note that structured abstracts are not allowed per journal style: What is the effect of a mouthwash containing various active chemical ingredients on plaque control and managing gingivitis in adults based on evidence gathered from existing systematic reviews? The summarized evidence suggests that mouthwashes containing chlorhexidine(CHX) and essential oils (EO) had a large effect supported by a strong body of evidence. Also there was strong evidence for a moderate effect of cetylpyridinium chloride(CPC). Evidence suggests that a CHX mouthwash is the first choice, the most reliable alternative is EO. No difference between CHX and EO with respect to gingivitis was observed.
Topics: Anti-Infective Agents, Local; Dental Plaque; Gingivitis; Humans; Mouthwashes; Oral Health
PubMed: 26427569
DOI: 10.1016/j.cden.2015.06.002 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Mar 2017Dental plaque associated gingivitis is a reversible inflammatory condition caused by accumulation and persistence of microbial biofilms (dental plaque) on the teeth. It... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Dental plaque associated gingivitis is a reversible inflammatory condition caused by accumulation and persistence of microbial biofilms (dental plaque) on the teeth. It is characterised by redness and swelling of the gingivae (gums) and a tendency for the gingivae to bleed easily. In susceptible individuals, gingivitis may lead to periodontitis and loss of the soft tissue and bony support for the tooth. It is thought that chlorhexidine mouthrinse may reduce the build-up of plaque thereby reducing gingivitis.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the effectiveness of chlorhexidine mouthrinse used as an adjunct to mechanical oral hygiene procedures for the control of gingivitis and plaque compared to mechanical oral hygiene procedures alone or mechanical oral hygiene procedures plus placebo/control mouthrinse. Mechanical oral hygiene procedures were toothbrushing with/without the use of dental floss or interdental cleaning aids and could include professional tooth cleaning/periodontal treatment.To determine whether the effect of chlorhexidine mouthrinse is influenced by chlorhexidine concentration, or frequency of rinsing (once/day versus twice/day).To report and describe any adverse effects associated with chlorhexidine mouthrinse use from included trials.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 28 September 2016); the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 8) in the Cochrane Library (searched 28 September 2016); MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 28 September 2016); Embase Ovid (1980 to 28 September 2016); and CINAHL EBSCO (Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature; 1937 to 28 September 2016). We searched ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomised controlled trials assessing the effects of chlorhexidine mouthrinse used as an adjunct to mechanical oral hygiene procedures for at least 4 weeks on gingivitis in children and adults. Mechanical oral hygiene procedures were toothbrushing with/without use of dental floss or interdental cleaning aids and could include professional tooth cleaning/periodontal treatment. We included trials where participants had gingivitis or periodontitis, where participants were healthy and where some or all participants had medical conditions or special care needs.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened the search results extracted data and assessed the risk of bias of the included studies. We attempted to contact study authors for missing data or clarification where feasible. For continuous outcomes, we used means and standard deviations to obtain the mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). We combined MDs where studies used the same scale and standardised mean differences (SMDs) where studies used different scales. For dichotomous outcomes, we reported risk ratios (RR) and 95% CIs. Due to anticipated heterogeneity we used random-effects models for all meta-analyses.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 51 studies that analysed a total of 5345 participants. One study was assessed as being at unclear risk of bias, with the remaining 50 being at high risk of bias, however, this did not affect the quality assessments for gingivitis and plaque as we believe that further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Gingivitis After 4 to 6 weeks of use, chlorhexidine mouthrinse reduced gingivitis (Gingival Index (GI) 0 to 3 scale) by 0.21 (95% CI 0.11 to 0.31) compared to placebo, control or no mouthrinse (10 trials, 805 participants with mild gingival inflammation (mean score 1 on the GI scale) analysed, high-quality evidence). A similar effect size was found for reducing gingivitis at 6 months. There were insufficient data to determine the reduction in gingivitis associated with chlorhexidine mouthrinse use in individuals with mean GI scores of 1.1 to 3 (moderate or severe levels of gingival inflammation). Plaque Plaque was measured by different indices and the SMD at 4 to 6 weeks was 1.45 (95% CI 1.00 to 1.90) standard deviations lower in the chlorhexidine group (12 trials, 950 participants analysed, high-quality evidence), indicating a large reduction in plaque. A similar large reduction was found for chlorhexidine mouthrinse use at 6 months. Extrinsic tooth staining There was a large increase in extrinsic tooth staining in participants using chlorhexidine mouthrinse at 4 to 6 weeks. The SMD was 1.07 (95% CI 0.80 to 1.34) standard deviations higher (eight trials, 415 participants analysed, moderate-quality evidence) in the chlorhexidine mouthrinse group. There was also a large increase in extrinsic tooth staining in participants using chlorhexidine mouthrinse at 7 to 12 weeks and 6 months. Calculus Results for the effect of chlorhexidine mouthrinse on calculus formation were inconclusive. Effect of concentration and frequency of rinsing There were insufficient data to determine whether there was a difference in effect for either chlorhexidine concentration or frequency of rinsing. Other adverse effects The adverse effects most commonly reported in the included studies were taste disturbance/alteration (reported in 11 studies), effects on the oral mucosa including soreness, irritation, mild desquamation and mucosal ulceration/erosions (reported in 13 studies) and a general burning sensation or a burning tongue or both (reported in nine studies).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There is high-quality evidence from studies that reported the Löe and Silness Gingival Index of a reduction in gingivitis in individuals with mild gingival inflammation on average (mean score of 1 on the 0 to 3 GI scale) that was not considered to be clinically relevant. There is high-quality evidence of a large reduction in dental plaque with chlorhexidine mouthrinse used as an adjunct to mechanical oral hygiene procedures for 4 to 6 weeks and 6 months. There is no evidence that one concentration of chlorhexidine rinse is more effective than another. There is insufficient evidence to determine the reduction in gingivitis associated with chlorhexidine mouthrinse use in individuals with mean GI scores of 1.1 to 3 indicating moderate or severe levels of gingival inflammation. Rinsing with chlorhexidine mouthrinse for 4 weeks or longer causes extrinsic tooth staining. In addition, other adverse effects such as calculus build up, transient taste disturbance and effects on the oral mucosa were reported in the included studies.
Topics: Adolescent; Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Chemotherapy, Adjuvant; Child; Chlorhexidine; Dental Plaque; Dental Plaque Index; Dental Prophylaxis; Female; Gingivitis; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Mouthwashes; Oral Hygiene; Publication Bias; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Time Factors; Tooth Discoloration
PubMed: 28362061
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD008676.pub2 -
The Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry Dec 2023Artificial intelligence (AI) models have been developed for periodontal applications, including diagnosing gingivitis and periodontal disease, but their accuracy and... (Review)
Review
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Artificial intelligence (AI) models have been developed for periodontal applications, including diagnosing gingivitis and periodontal disease, but their accuracy and maturity of the technology remain unclear.
PURPOSE
The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate the performance of the AI models for detecting dental plaque and diagnosing gingivitis and periodontal disease.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A review was performed in 4 databases: MEDLINE/PubMed, World of Science, Cochrane, and Scopus. A manual search was also conducted. Studies were classified into 4 groups: detecting dental plaque, diagnosis of gingivitis, diagnosis of periodontal disease from intraoral images, and diagnosis of alveolar bone loss from periapical, bitewing, and panoramic radiographs. Two investigators evaluated the studies independently by applying the Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal. A third examiner was consulted to resolve any lack of consensus.
RESULTS
Twenty-four articles were included: 2 studies developed AI models for detecting plaque, resulting in accuracy ranging from 73.6% to 99%; 7 studies assessed the ability to diagnose gingivitis from intraoral photographs reporting an accuracy between 74% and 78.20%; 1 study used fluorescent intraoral images to diagnose gingivitis reporting 67.7% to 73.72% accuracy; 3 studies assessed the ability to diagnose periodontal disease from intraoral photographs with an accuracy between 47% and 81%, and 11 studies evaluated the performance of AI models for detecting alveolar bone loss from radiographic images reporting an accuracy between 73.4% and 99%.
CONCLUSIONS
AI models for periodontology applications are still in development but might provide a powerful diagnostic tool.
Topics: Humans; Dental Plaque; Alveolar Bone Loss; Artificial Intelligence; Periodontal Diseases; Gingivitis
PubMed: 35300850
DOI: 10.1016/j.prosdent.2022.01.026 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jan 2018Periodontitis is a bacterially-induced, chronic inflammatory disease that destroys the connective tissues and bone that support teeth. Active periodontal treatment aims... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Periodontitis is a bacterially-induced, chronic inflammatory disease that destroys the connective tissues and bone that support teeth. Active periodontal treatment aims to reduce the inflammatory response, primarily through eradication of bacterial deposits. Following completion of treatment and arrest of inflammation, supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) is employed to reduce the probability of re-infection and progression of the disease; to maintain teeth without pain, excessive mobility or persistent infection in the long term, and to prevent related oral diseases.According to the American Academy of Periodontology, SPT should include all components of a typical dental recall examination, and importantly should also include periodontal re-evaluation and risk assessment, supragingival and subgingival removal of bacterial plaque and calculus, and re-treatment of any sites showing recurrent or persistent disease. While the first four points might be expected to form part of the routine examination appointment for periodontally healthy patients, the inclusion of thorough periodontal evaluation, risk assessment and subsequent treatment - normally including mechanical debridement of any plaque or calculus deposits - differentiates SPT from routine care.Success of SPT has been reported in a number of long-term, retrospective studies. This review aimed to assess the evidence available from randomised controlled trials (RCTs).
OBJECTIVES
To determine the effects of supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) in the maintenance of the dentition of adults treated for periodontitis.
SEARCH METHODS
Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 8 May 2017), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2017, Issue 5), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 8 May 2017), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 8 May 2017). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating SPT versus monitoring only or alternative approaches to mechanical debridement; SPT alone versus SPT with adjunctive interventions; different approaches to or providers of SPT; and different time intervals for SPT delivery.We excluded split-mouth studies where we considered there could be a risk of contamination.Participants must have completed active periodontal therapy at least six months prior to randomisation and be enrolled in an SPT programme. Trials must have had a minimum follow-up period of 12 months.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently screened search results to identify studies for inclusion, assessed the risk of bias in included studies and extracted study data. When possible, we calculated mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous variables. Two review authors assessed the quality of evidence for each comparison and outcome using GRADE criteria.
MAIN RESULTS
We included four trials involving 307 participants aged 31 to 85 years, who had been previously treated for moderate to severe chronic periodontitis. Three studies compared adjuncts to mechanical debridement in SPT versus debridement only. The adjuncts were local antibiotics in two studies (one at high risk of bias and one at low risk) and photodynamic therapy in one study (at unclear risk of bias). One study at high risk of bias compared provision of SPT by a specialist versus general practitioner. We did not identify any RCTs evaluating the effects of SPT versus monitoring only, or of providing SPT at different time intervals, or that compared the effects of mechanical debridement using different approaches or technologies.No included trials measured our primary outcome 'tooth loss'; however, studies evaluated signs of inflammation and potential periodontal disease progression, including bleeding on probing (BoP), clinical attachment level (CAL) and probing pocket depth (PPD).There was no evidence of a difference between SPT delivered by a specialist versus a general practitioner for BoP or PPD at 12 months (very low-quality evidence). This study did not measure CAL or adverse events.Due to heterogeneous outcome reporting, it was not possible to combine data from the two studies comparing mechanical debridement with or without the use of adjunctive local antibiotics. Both studies found no evidence of a difference between groups at 12 months (low to very low-quality evidence). There were no adverse events in either study.The use of adjunctive photodynamic therapy did not demonstrate evidence of benefit compared to mechanical debridement only (very low-quality evidence). Adverse events were not measured.The quality of the evidence is low to very low for these comparisons. Future research is likely to change the findings, therefore the results should be interpreted with caution.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Overall, there is insufficient evidence to determine the superiority of different protocols or adjunctive strategies to improve tooth maintenance during SPT. No trials evaluated SPT versus monitoring only. The evidence available for the comparisons evaluated is of low to very low quality, and hampered by dissimilarities in outcome reporting. More trials using uniform definitions and outcomes are required to address the objectives of this review.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Anti-Bacterial Agents; Chronic Periodontitis; Dental Plaque; Humans; Middle Aged; Periodontal Debridement; Periodontics; Photochemotherapy; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Tooth Loss
PubMed: 29291254
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD009376.pub2