-
The Saudi Dental Journal May 2023Crown lengthening is one of the most common periodontal surgical procedures carried out to increase the amount of supragingival tooth structure. There is a lot of... (Review)
Review
INTRODUCTION
Crown lengthening is one of the most common periodontal surgical procedures carried out to increase the amount of supragingival tooth structure. There is a lot of literature on crown lengthening surgeries, but very few systematic reviews comparing treated and adjacent sites over a six-month period. The purpose of this systematic review and -analysis was to evaluate the outcomes of crown lengthening surgery in terms of changes in periodontal clinical parameters and periodontal tissue stability between treated and adjacent sites.
METHODS
Electronic databases were searched up to 28 February 2022 with no restriction on publication status. A manual search of journals was also performed. Predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria were used to select the relevant articles that assessed dimensional changes in periodontal tissues after crown lengthening surgery. The risk of bias was assessed using the JBI critical appraisal checklist. Data -analysis was performed using a statistical software program.
RESULTS
A total of 78 studies were identified, of which, four clinical controlled trials containing 182 crown lengthening surgical procedures across 111 participants were included. Meta-analysis showed no statistically significant changes after three or six months in terms of supracrestal tissue attachment levels, bone level and probing pocket depth between treated and adjacent sites. However, clinical attachment level changes were statistically significant, favouring adjacent teeth at six months.
CONCLUSIONS
Within the limitation of this systematic review, crown lengthening surgery results in stable periodontal tissues over time according to the acceptable periodontal healing parameters. Further evidence is still required to substantiate these findings.
PubMed: 37251724
DOI: 10.1016/j.sdentj.2023.03.004 -
Clinical and Experimental Dental... Jun 2021While tobacco cigarette smoking has been proven to be a risk factor for periodontitis, limited information is available regarding vaping, a new alternative to smoking... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE
While tobacco cigarette smoking has been proven to be a risk factor for periodontitis, limited information is available regarding vaping, a new alternative to smoking that has been branded as less harmful. Several important in vitro studies have shown that vaping has a similarly damaging effect as cigarette smoking on the health of the periodontium. However, a comprehensive review is lacking in this field. Therefore, we aimed to systematically review the literature about the impact of vaping on periodontitis.
METHODS
The research question was created using the PICOs format. A systematic search of the following electronic databases was performed up to March 2020: Medline, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane, and grey literature. Human studies that assessed periodontal status (plaque index, bleeding on probing, clinical attachment loss, marginal bone loss, and probing depth) in e-cigarette users compared to non-smokers (control group) were assessed based on an estimate of fixed effects. The weights of the studies were calculated based on their risks of bias.
RESULTS
After duplicates were removed, 1,659 studies were screened and 8 case-control studies that investigated the relationship between vaping and periodontal parameters in humans were selected after their risk of bias assessment. Estimated effects of vaping after weighting results based on their standard deviation showed increased plaque, marginal bone loss, clinical attachment loss, pocket depth, and reduced bleeding on probing.
CONCLUSION
This study concluded that there is not enough evidence to fully characterize the impacts of vaping on periodontitis. However, within the limitations of our review and the selected included studies, the available results point to increased destruction of the periodontium leading to the development of the disease.
Topics: Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems; Humans; Periodontitis; Smokers; Smoking; Vaping
PubMed: 33274850
DOI: 10.1002/cre2.360 -
Journal of Clinical Periodontology Aug 2014The treatment of periodontal-endodontic lesions is challenging due to the involvement of both periodontal and endodontic tissues. (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
The treatment of periodontal-endodontic lesions is challenging due to the involvement of both periodontal and endodontic tissues.
OBJECTIVE
To evaluate the treatment options and outcomes of periodontal-endodontic lesions.
MATERIAL AND METHODS
A systematic literature search was performed for articles published by 12 May 2013 using electronic databases and hand search. Two reviewers conducted the study selection, data collection and validity assessment. The PRISMA criteria were applied. From 1087 titles identified by the search strategy, five studies and 18 case reports were included.
RESULTS
Clinical studies and case reports were published from the years 1981 to 2012. A pronounced heterogeneity exists among studies regarding applied treatment protocols and quality of reporting. In all clinical studies, comprising 111 teeth, a non-surgical root canal treatment (RCT) was performed as initial treatment step. Non-surgical and/or a surgical periodontal therapy was applied in some studies without re-evaluation of the endodontic healing. Probing pocket depth reductions were reported in all included studies, comprising the data from 80 teeth at follow-up.
CONCLUSIONS
A sequential treatment with root canal treatment as a first treatment step appears to be reasonable. An adequate time for tissue healing is suggested prior to re-evaluation.
Topics: Clinical Protocols; Dental Pulp Diseases; Humans; Periodontal Debridement; Periodontal Diseases; Root Canal Therapy; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 24766568
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.12265 -
Journal of Clinical Periodontology Jul 2020The aim of this systematic review was to compare clinical, radiographic and patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) in intra-bony defects treated with regenerative surgery or... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
The aim of this systematic review was to compare clinical, radiographic and patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) in intra-bony defects treated with regenerative surgery or access flap.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
A systematic review protocol was written following the PRISMA checklist. Electronic and hand searches were performed to identify randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on regenerative treatment of deep intra-bony defects (≥3 mm) with a follow-up of at least 12 months. Primary outcome variables were probing pocket depth (PPD) reduction, clinical attachment level (CAL) gain and tooth loss. Secondary outcome variables were Rec, radiographic bone gain, pocket "closure," PROMs and adverse events. Meta-analysis was carried out when possible. To evaluate treatment effect, odds ratios were combined for dichotomous data and mean differences for continuous data using a random-effect model.
RESULTS
A total of 79 RCTs (88 articles) published from 1990 to 2019 and accounting for 3,042 patients and 3,612 intra-bony defects were included in this systematic review. Only 10 of included studies were rated at low risk of bias. A total of 13 meta-analyses were performed. All regenerative procedures provided adjunctive benefit in terms of CAL gain (1.34 mm; 0.95-1.73) compared with open flap debridement alone. Both enamel matrix derivative (EMD) and guided tissue regeneration (GTR) were superior to OFD alone in improving CAL (1.27 mm; 0.79-1.74 mm and 1.43 mm; 0.76-2.22, respectively), although with moderate-high heterogeneity. Among biomaterials, the addition of deproteinized bovine bone mineral (DBBM) improved the clinical outcomes of both GTR with resorbable barriers and EMD. Papillary preservation flaps enhanced the clinical outcomes. The strength of evidence was low to moderate.
CONCLUSION
EMD or GTR in combination with papillary preservation flaps should be considered the treatment of choice for residual pockets with deep (≥3 mm) intra-bony defects.
Topics: Alveolar Bone Loss; Animals; Bone Transplantation; Cattle; Dental Enamel Proteins; Follow-Up Studies; Guided Tissue Regeneration, Periodontal; Humans; Periodontal Attachment Loss; Surgical Flaps; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 31860134
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13237 -
Journal of Clinical Periodontology Jun 2022To assess the beneficial and adverse effects on the dental and periodontal issues of periodontal-orthodontic treatment of teeth with pathological tooth flaring,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Effect of periodontal-orthodontic treatment of teeth with pathological tooth flaring, drifting, and elongation in patients with severe periodontitis: A systematic review with meta-analysis.
AIM
To assess the beneficial and adverse effects on the dental and periodontal issues of periodontal-orthodontic treatment of teeth with pathological tooth flaring, drifting, and elongation in patients with severe periodontitis.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Nine databases were searched in April 2020 for randomized/non-randomized clinical studies. After duplicate study selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment, random-effect meta-analyses of mean differences (MDs) and their 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were performed, followed by subgroup/meta-regression analyses.
RESULTS
A total of 30 randomized and non-randomized clinical studies including 914 patients (29.7% male; mean age 43.4 years) were identified. Orthodontic treatment of pathologically migrated teeth was associated with clinical attachment gain (-0.24 mm; seven studies), pocket probing depth reduction (-0.23 mm; seven studies), marginal bone gain (-0.36 mm; seven studies), and papilla height gain (-1.42 mm; two studies) without considerable adverse effects, while patient sex, gingival phenotype, baseline disease severity, interval between periodontal and orthodontic treatment, and orthodontic treatment duration affected the results. Greater marginal bone level gains were seen by additional circumferential fiberotomy (two studies; MD = -0.98 mm; 95% CI = -1.87 to -0.10 mm; p = .03), but the quality of evidence was low.
CONCLUSIONS
Limited evidence of poor quality indicates that orthodontic treatment might be associated with small improvements of periodontal parameters, which do not seem to affect prognosis, but more research is needed.
Topics: Female; Humans; Male; Periodontitis
PubMed: 34327710
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13529 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Apr 2022Glycaemic control is a key component in diabetes mellitus (diabetes) management. Periodontitis is the inflammation and destruction of the underlying supporting tissues... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Glycaemic control is a key component in diabetes mellitus (diabetes) management. Periodontitis is the inflammation and destruction of the underlying supporting tissues of the teeth. Some studies have suggested a bidirectional relationship between glycaemic control and periodontitis. Treatment for periodontitis involves subgingival instrumentation, which is the professional removal of plaque, calculus, and debris from below the gumline using hand or ultrasonic instruments. This is known variously as scaling and root planing, mechanical debridement, or non-surgical periodontal treatment. Subgingival instrumentation is sometimes accompanied by local or systemic antimicrobials, and occasionally by surgical intervention to cut away gum tissue when periodontitis is severe. This review is part one of an update of a review published in 2010 and first updated in 2015, and evaluates periodontal treatment versus no intervention or usual care. OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effects of periodontal treatment on glycaemic control in people with diabetes mellitus and periodontitis.
SEARCH METHODS
An information specialist searched six bibliographic databases up to 7 September 2021 and additional search methods were used to identify published, unpublished, and ongoing studies. SELECTION CRITERIA: We searched for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of people with type 1 or type 2 diabetes mellitus and a diagnosis of periodontitis that compared subgingival instrumentation (sometimes with surgical treatment or adjunctive antimicrobial therapy or both) to no active intervention or 'usual care' (oral hygiene instruction, education or support interventions, and/or supragingival scaling (also known as PMPR, professional mechanical plaque removal)). To be included, the RCTs had to have lasted at least 3 months and have measured HbA1c (glycated haemoglobin).
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
At least two review authors independently examined the titles and abstracts retrieved by the search, selected the included trials, extracted data from included trials, and assessed included trials for risk of bias. Where necessary and possible, we attempted to contact study authors. Our primary outcome was blood glucose levels measured as glycated (glycosylated) haemoglobin assay (HbA1c), which can be reported as a percentage of total haemoglobin or as millimoles per mole (mmol/mol). Our secondary outcomes included adverse effects, periodontal indices (bleeding on probing, clinical attachment level, gingival index, plaque index, and probing pocket depth), quality of life, cost implications, and diabetic complications.
MAIN RESULTS
We included 35 studies, which randomised 3249 participants to periodontal treatment or control. All studies used a parallel-RCT design and followed up participants for between 3 and 12 months. The studies focused on people with type 2 diabetes, other than one study that included participants with type 1 or type 2 diabetes. Most studies were mixed in terms of whether metabolic control of participants at baseline was good, fair, or poor. Most studies were carried out in secondary care. We assessed two studies as being at low risk of bias, 14 studies at high risk of bias, and the risk of bias in 19 studies was unclear. We undertook a sensitivity analysis for our primary outcome based on studies at low risk of bias and this supported the main findings. Moderate-certainty evidence from 30 studies (2443 analysed participants) showed an absolute reduction in HbA1c of 0.43% (4.7 mmol/mol) 3 to 4 months after treatment of periodontitis (95% confidence interval (CI) -0.59% to -0.28%; -6.4 mmol/mol to -3.0 mmol/mol). Similarly, after 6 months, we found an absolute reduction in HbA1c of 0.30% (3.3 mmol/mol) (95% CI -0.52% to -0.08%; -5.7 mmol/mol to -0.9 mmol/mol; 12 studies, 1457 participants), and after 12 months, an absolute reduction of 0.50% (5.4 mmol/mol) (95% CI -0.55% to -0.45%; -6.0 mmol/mol to -4.9 mmol/mol; 1 study, 264 participants). Studies that measured adverse effects generally reported that no or only mild harms occurred, and any serious adverse events were similar in intervention and control arms. However, adverse effects of periodontal treatments were not evaluated in most studies.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
Our 2022 update of this review has doubled the number of included studies and participants, which has led to a change in our conclusions about the primary outcome of glycaemic control and in our level of certainty in this conclusion. We now have moderate-certainty evidence that periodontal treatment using subgingival instrumentation improves glycaemic control in people with both periodontitis and diabetes by a clinically significant amount when compared to no treatment or usual care. Further trials evaluating periodontal treatment versus no treatment/usual care are unlikely to change the overall conclusion reached in this review.
Topics: Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Glycated Hemoglobin; Glycemic Control; Humans; Periodontal Index; Periodontitis
PubMed: 35420698
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD004714.pub4 -
Medicina Oral, Patologia Oral Y Cirugia... Jul 2023The aim was to assess periodontal health maintenance and gingival recessions development in patients undergoing an orthodontic treatment with clear aligners (CA) and... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Assessment of the periodontal health status and gingival recession during orthodontic treatment with clear aligners and fixed appliances: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
BACKGROUND
The aim was to assess periodontal health maintenance and gingival recessions development in patients undergoing an orthodontic treatment with clear aligners (CA) and fixed appliances (FA).
MATERIAL AND METHODS
An electronic search in MEDLINE, Scopus, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science was performed up to September 2022 to identify all potential articles. Two investigators independently selected the studies according to the inclusion criteria. Prospective and retrospective studies assessing the periodontal health status and gingival recession development during the orthodontic treatment with buccal FA and CA were included. Case series, cross-sectional studies, and studies with less than two months of follow-up were excluded. Two investigators independently extracted the data from included articles and assessed risk of bias across studies using the Cochrane Collaboration tool. Qualitative and quantitative analyses of the data were performed. Pairwise meta-analysis using a random-effects model were used to compare periodontal indices between FA and CA treatment in different follow-up periods.
RESULTS
From the 129 potential studies, finally 12 studies were included. Only 8 could be included in the quantitative analysis. CA seems to slightly maintain better periodontal health indices. Only plaque index in a mid-term follow-up (mean difference (MD): -0.99; 95%; Confidence interval (CI) [-1.94 to -0.03]; P=.04; I2=99%), and pocket probing depth at a long-term follow-up (MD: -0.93mm; 95% CI [-1.16 to 0.7]; P<0.0001) reported statistically significant results favoring CA.
CONCLUSIONS
Up to the date there is not enough evidence to conclude that CA maintains better periodontal health during an orthodontic treatment than FA.
Topics: Humans; Gingival Recession; Prospective Studies; Cross-Sectional Studies; Retrospective Studies; Orthodontic Appliances, Fixed; Orthodontic Appliances, Removable; Orthodontic Appliances
PubMed: 36641738
DOI: 10.4317/medoral.25760 -
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 -
Journal of Clinical Periodontology Mar 2021Systematic reviews have established the short-term improvements of periodontal regenerative/reconstructive procedures compared to conventional surgical treatment in... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
Medium- and long-term clinical benefits of periodontal regenerative/reconstructive procedures in intrabony defects: Systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical studies.
BACKGROUND
Systematic reviews have established the short-term improvements of periodontal regenerative/reconstructive procedures compared to conventional surgical treatment in intrabony defects. However, a hierarchy of periodontal regenerative/reconstructive procedures regarding the medium- to long-term results of treatment does not exist.
AIM
To systematically assess the literature to answer the focused question "In periodontitis patients with intrabony defects, what are the medium- and long-term benefits of periodontal regenerative/reconstructive procedures compared with open flap debridement (OFD), in terms of clinical and/or radiographic outcome parameters and tooth retention?".
MATERIAL & METHODS
Randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs), reporting on clinical and/or radiographic outcome parameters of periodontal regenerative/reconstructive procedures ≥3 years post-operatively, were systematically assessed. Clinical [residual probing pocket depth (PD) and clinical attachment level (CAL) gain, tooth loss] and radiographic [residual defect depth (RDD), bone gain (RBL)] outcome parameters were assessed. Descriptive statistics were calculated, and Bayesian random-effects network meta-analyses (NMA) were performed where possible.
RESULTS
Thirty RCTs, presenting data 3 to 20 years after treatment with grafting, GTR, EMD, as monotherapies, combinations thereof, and/or adjunctive use of blood-derived growth factor constructs or with OFD only, were included. NMA based on 21 RCTs showed that OFD was clearly the least efficacious treatment; regenerative/reconstructive treatments resulted in significantly shallower residual PD in 4 out 8 comparisons [range of mean differences (MD): -2.37 to -0.60 mm] and larger CAL gain in 6 out 8 comparisons (range of MD: 1.26 to 2.66 mm), and combination approaches appeared as the most efficacious. Tooth loss after regenerative/reconstructive treatment was less frequent (0.4%) compared to OFD (2.8%), but the evidence was sparse. There were only sparse radiographic data not allowing any relevant comparisons.
CONCLUSION
Periodontal regenerative/reconstructive therapy in intrabony defects results, in general, in shallower residual PD and larger CAL gain compared with OFD, translating in high rates of tooth survival, on a medium (3-5 years) to long-term basis (5-20 years). Combination approaches appear, in general, more efficacious compared to monotherapy in terms of shallower residual PD and larger CAL gain. A clear hierarchy could, however, not be established due to limited evidence.
Topics: Alveolar Bone Loss; Bone Transplantation; Dental Enamel Proteins; Follow-Up Studies; Guided Tissue Regeneration, Periodontal; Humans; Network Meta-Analysis; Periodontal Attachment Loss; Plastic Surgery Procedures; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 33289191
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13409 -
Journal of Clinical Periodontology Jul 2020To evaluate the efficacy of subgingival instrumentation (PICOS-1), sonic/ultrasonic/hand instruments (PICOS-2) and different subgingival instrumentation delivery... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
OBJECTIVES
To evaluate the efficacy of subgingival instrumentation (PICOS-1), sonic/ultrasonic/hand instruments (PICOS-2) and different subgingival instrumentation delivery protocols (PICOS-3) to treat periodontitis.
METHODS
Systematic electronic search (CENTRAL/MEDLINE/EMBASE/SCOPUS/LILACS) to March 2019 was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCT) reporting on subgingival instrumentation. Duplicate screening and data extraction were performed to formulate evidence tables and meta-analysis as appropriate.
RESULTS
As only one RCT addressed the efficacy of subgingival instrumentation compared with supragingival cleaning alone (PICOS-1), baseline and final measures from 9 studies were considered. The weighted pocket depth (PD) reduction was 1.4 mm (95%CI: 1.0 1.7) at 6/8 months, and the proportion of pocket closure was estimated at 74% (95%CI: 64-85). Six RCTs compared hand and sonic/ultrasonic instruments for subgingival instrumentation (PICOS-2). No significant differences were observed between groups by follow-up time point or category of initial PD. Thirteen RCTs evaluated quadrant-wise versus full-mouth approaches (PICOS-3). No significant differences were observed between groups irrespective of time-points or initial PD. Five studies reported patient-reported outcomes, reporting no differences between groups.
CONCLUSIONS
Nonsurgical periodontal therapy by mechanical subgingival instrumentation is an efficacious means to achieve infection control in periodontitis patients irrespective of the type of instrument or mode of delivery. Prospero ID: CRD42019124887.
Topics: Dental Scaling; Humans; Periodontitis; Ultrasonics
PubMed: 31889320
DOI: 10.1111/jcpe.13245