Farooqi Owais A, Wehler Carolyn J, Gibson Gretchen, Jurasic M Marianne, Jones Judith A
Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Salem, VA, USA.
VA Center for Healthcare Organization and Implementation Research, Edith Nourse Rogers Memorial Veterans Hospital, Bedford, MA 01730, USA; Boston University, Henry M. Goldman School of Dental Medicine, Boston, MA 02118, USA.
J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2015 Dec;15(4):171-81. doi: 10.1016/j.jebdp.2015.10.001. Epub 2015 Nov 19.
A systematic review of the literature was undertaken to assess the evidence to support a specific time interval between periodontal maintenance (PM) visits.
Relevant articles were identified through searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE and PubMed using specific search terms, until April, 2014, resulting in 1095 abstracts and/or titles with possible relevance. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) guidelines were used to evaluate the strength of studies and synthesize findings. If mean recall interval was not reported for study groups, authors were contacted to attempt to retrieve this information.
Eight cohort studies met the inclusion criteria. No randomized control trials were found. All included studies assessed the effect of PM recall intervals in terms of compliance with a recommended regimen (3-6 months) as a primary outcome. Shorter PM intervals (3-6 months) favored more teeth retention but also statistically insignificant differences between RC and IC/EC, or converse findings are also found. In the 2 studies reporting mean recall interval in groups, significant tooth loss differences were noted as the interval neared the 12 month limit.
Evidence for a specific recall interval (e.g. every 3 months) for all patients following periodontal therapy is weak. Further studies, such as RCTs or large electronic database evaluations would be appropriate. The merits of risk-based recommendations over fixed recall interval regimens should be explored.
对文献进行系统综述,以评估支持牙周维护(PM)复诊之间特定时间间隔的证据。
通过在MEDLINE、EMBASE和PubMed中使用特定检索词进行检索,确定相关文章,截至2014年4月,共得到1095篇可能相关的摘要和/或标题。采用批判性评估技能计划(CASP)指南评估研究的强度并综合研究结果。如果研究组未报告平均复诊间隔时间,则联系作者以获取该信息。
八项队列研究符合纳入标准。未发现随机对照试验。所有纳入研究均将评估PM复诊间隔对遵循推荐方案(3 - 6个月)的依从性的影响作为主要结果。较短的PM间隔(3 - 6个月)有利于保留更多牙齿,但在接受常规护理(RC)和接受强化护理(IC/EC)之间也存在统计学上不显著的差异,或者也发现了相反的结果。在两项报告组内平均复诊间隔时间的研究中,随着间隔接近1年的限制,牙齿脱落的差异显著。
牙周治疗后对所有患者采用特定复诊间隔(如每3个月一次)的证据不足。进一步的研究,如随机对照试验或大型电子数据库评估是合适的。应探索基于风险的建议相对于固定复诊间隔方案的优点。