-
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 -
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 -
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 -
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 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 -
BMC Oral Health Jul 2020To systematically review the epidemiologic relationship between periodontitis and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
BACKGROUND
To systematically review the epidemiologic relationship between periodontitis and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).
METHODS
Four electronic databases were searched up until December 2018. The manual search included the reference lists of the included studies and relevant journals. Observational studies evaluating the relationship between T2DM and periodontitis were included. Meta-analyses were conducted using STATA.
RESULTS
A total of 53 observational studies were included. The Adjusted T2DM prevalence was significantly higher in periodontitis patients (OR = 4.04, p = 0.000), and vice versa (OR = 1.58, p = 0.000). T2DM patients had significantly worse periodontal status, as reflected in a 0.61 mm deeper periodontal pocket, a 0.89 mm higher attachment loss and approximately 2 more lost teeth (all p = 0.000), than those without T2DM. The results of the cohort studies found that T2DM could elevate the risk of developing periodontitis by 34% (p = 0.002). The glycemic control of T2DM patients might result in different periodontitis outcomes. Severe periodontitis increased the incidence of T2DM by 53% (p = 0.000), and this result was stable. In contrast, the impact of mild periodontitis on T2DM incidence (RR = 1.28, p = 0.007) was less robust.
CONCLUSIONS
There is an evident bidirectional relationship between T2DM and periodontitis. Further well-designed cohort studies are needed to confirm this finding. Our results suggest that both dentists and physicians need to be aware of the strong connection between periodontitis and T2DM. Controlling these two diseases might help prevent each other's incidence.
Topics: Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2; Humans; Periodontal Pocket; Periodontitis
PubMed: 32652980
DOI: 10.1186/s12903-020-01180-w -
Clinical Oral Investigations Jan 2023The aim of this systematic review was to examine the literature on aggressive and chronic periodontitis and orthodontics to clarify the therapy-relevant aspects of... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVES
The aim of this systematic review was to examine the literature on aggressive and chronic periodontitis and orthodontics to clarify the therapy-relevant aspects of orthodontic treatment with altered biomechanics in periodontally compromised dentition.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Literature searches were conducted in the electronic databases "PubMed" and "DIMDI" using the keywords "aggressive periodontitis AND ortho*," "aggressive periodontitis AND orthodontics," "chronic periodontitis AND ortho*," and "chronic periodontitis AND orthodontics" for the publication period from January 1990 to July 2022. In addition, a manual search was carried out in the selected trade journals "Community Dental Health," "European Journal of Oral Sciences," and "Parodontologie." Human clinical trials were included, whereas animal experimental studies, case reports, and reviews were generally excluded. The appropriate studies were selected, and the relevant data was tabulated according to different parameters, regarding the study design, the study structure, and the conduct of the study.
RESULTS
A total of 1067 articles were found in the preliminary electronic search. The manual search and review of all related bibliographies resulted in an additional 1591 hits. After the first screening, 43 articles were classified as potentially relevant and reviewed in their original form. After the suitability test, 5 studies with a total of 366 participants were included in the final evaluation. These included one randomized controlled trial and four low-evidence intervention studies. The studies were conducted in two university hospitals and three private practices. All participants underwent scaling and root plaining and periodontal surgery before the orthodontic treatment started. Mean probing pocket depth reduction before and after the interdisciplinary treatment was analyzed in all the included studies; mean difference in clinical attachment level in four of the studies was also included. All participants were enrolled in a continuous recall system. In all studies, orthodontic therapy in periodontally compromised patients improved function and esthetics, resulting in lower probing depths and clinical attachment gains.
CONCLUSIONS
Orthodontic treatment can be used for patients with reduced periodontal support to stabilize clinical findings and improve function and esthetics. The prerequisite for this is a profound knowledge of altered biomechanics and an adapted interdisciplinary treatment approach. Due to the large heterogeneity of the included studies and their limited methodological quality, the results obtained in this review must be considered critically. Further randomized controlled long-term studies with comparable study designs are necessary to obtain reliable and reproducible treatment results.
CLINICAL RELEVANCE
Patients with periodontal impairment can be successfully treated with orthodontics as part of interdisciplinary therapy. Orthodontic treatment has no negative impact on the periodontium; if minimal, controlled forces are used under non-inflammatory conditions.
Topics: Humans; Aggressive Periodontitis; Chronic Periodontitis; Dental Care; Esthetics, Dental; Treatment Outcome
PubMed: 36502508
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-022-04822-1 -
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 -
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 -
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