Herrera David
Section of Periodontics, Faculty of Odontology, University Complutense, Madrid, Spain.
Evid Based Dent. 2011;12(2):46. doi: 10.1038/sj.ebd.6400791.
The Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, Health and Psychosocial Instruments, HealthSTAR (OVID), Allied and Complementary Medicine and the International Pharmaceutical Abstracts. Abstracts from 2007 to 2009 of the annual meetings of the American Academy of Periodontology, International Association of Dental Research and the American Association of Dental Research.
Randomised and quasi-randomised studies reported in any language comparing PDT as a primary or adjunctive therapy to no treatment, placebo or scaling and root planing (SRP). Eligible studies were those that included participants over 18 years of age and who had periodontitis, and where the primary outcome measurement was clinical attachment loss (CAL) and changes in probing depth.
Two reviewers reviewed, assessed and rated study quality and extracted relevant data. It is not reported how these data were collated. The quality of included studies was assessed according to Cochrane risk of bias domains. Mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were extracted. Data were combined in a meta-analysis where possible using the random-effects model. Homogeneity was assessed using the Cochrane test and heterogeneity assessed using I(2).
Five studies at moderate to high risk of bias were included. The studies differed markedly in design and were clinically heterogenous. Studies that compared PDT to no treatment found no difference in CAL whereas those that compared PDT plus SRP (n=26) to those receiving just SRP (n=26) gave a MD of 0.34 mm with 95% CI 0.05 to 0.63 mm. Three studies that compared PDT alone to SRP alone showed a reduction in probing depth in favour of SRP (MD -0.21, 95% CI -0.40-0.02). In three studies that compared PDT plus SRP to SRP alone the MD was 0.25 mm (95% CI: 0.04 to 0.45 mm).
There is insufficient evidence that photodynamic therapy as an independent treatment or as an adjunct to scaling and root planning is superior to SRP alone.
Cochrane对照试验中央注册库、MEDLINE、EMBASE、CINAHL、健康与心理社会测量工具数据库、HealthSTAR(OVID)、补充与替代医学数据库以及国际药学文摘数据库。2007年至2009年美国牙周病学会、国际牙科研究协会和美国牙科研究协会年会的摘要。
以任何语言报道的随机和半随机研究,比较光动力疗法(PDT)作为主要或辅助治疗与不治疗、安慰剂或龈下刮治及根面平整术(SRP)的效果。符合条件的研究包括年龄超过18岁且患有牙周炎的参与者,主要结局测量指标为临床附着丧失(CAL)和探诊深度变化。
两名评审员对研究质量进行审查、评估和评分,并提取相关数据。未报告这些数据是如何整理的。根据Cochrane偏倚风险领域评估纳入研究的质量。提取平均差(MD)和95%置信区间(CI)。在可能的情况下,使用随机效应模型对数据进行荟萃分析。使用Cochrane检验评估同质性,使用I²评估异质性。
纳入了5项偏倚风险为中度至高度的研究。这些研究在设计上有显著差异,且临床异质性较大。将PDT与不治疗进行比较的研究发现CAL无差异,而将PDT加SRP(n = 26)与仅接受SRP(n = 26)的研究相比,MD为0.34mm,95%CI为0.05至0.63mm。三项将单独的PDT与单独的SRP进行比较的研究显示,探诊深度减少,有利于SRP(MD -0.21,95%CI -0.40至-0.02)。在三项将PDT加SRP与单独的SRP进行比较的研究中,MD为0.25mm(95%CI:0.04至0.45mm)。
没有足够的证据表明光动力疗法作为一种独立治疗或作为龈下刮治及根面平整术的辅助治疗优于单独的SRP。