J Am Dent Assoc. 2017 Oct;148(10):750-759. doi: 10.1016/j.adaj.2017.05.011. Epub 2017 Jun 19.
For this systematic review, the authors evaluated and synthesized the available scientific evidence related to the effects of periodontal endoscopy on the treatment of periodontitis.
The authors searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Chinese Scientific Journals database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, and Chinese Medicine Premier's Wanfang database for articles about periodontal endoscopy that were published through January 2017. The authors considered the percentage of residual calculus, average treatment time, bleeding on probing (BOP), gingival inflammation (GI), and probing depth (PD) as outcome measures. The authors extracted data and performed meta-analyses for groups of articles for which it was appropriate.
The authors identified 8 articles as being suitable for this systematic review. The investigators of 3 studies reported results related to BOP and GI that revealed some advantages of periodontal endoscopy over traditional scaling and root planing (SRP). The investigators of 4 studies explored PD and found no difference between periodontal endoscopy and traditional SRP. The authors could not perform meta-analyses on the study results related to BOP, GI, or PD. The percentage of residual calculus after periodontal endoscope-aided debridement was significantly less than the percentage of residual calculus after traditional SRP (mean difference, -3.18; 95% confidence interval, -4.86 to -1.49; P = .002; heterogeneity I = 74%). The authors found that periodontal endoscopy took significantly more time than traditional SRP (mean difference, 6.01 minutes; 95% confidence interval, 4.23 to 7.8; P < .00001; heterogeneity I = 0%).
Periodontal endoscopy may provide additional benefits for calculus removal compared with traditional SRP, although it could take more time to perform. With respect to BOP, GI, and PD, the authors found no sufficient evidence to support the difference between the use of periodontal endoscopy and traditional SRP. The authors concluded that additional scientific research is required to assess the effects of periodontal endoscopy on the treatment of periodontitis.
在这项系统评价中，作者评估并综合了与牙周内窥镜治疗牙周炎相关的现有科学证据。
作者检索了 PubMed、Embase、Cochrane 图书馆、中国科学期刊数据库、中国国家知识基础设施和中国中医药网的文献，检索时间截至 2017 年 1 月。作者将牙周内窥镜治疗牙周炎的相关文章作为研究对象，考虑了剩余牙石百分比、平均治疗时间、探诊出血（BOP）、牙龈炎症（GI）和探诊深度（PD）作为观察指标。对于适合进行meta 分析的文章，作者提取数据并进行了分析。
作者确定了 8 篇适合进行系统评价的文章。其中 3 项研究的作者报道了与 BOP 和 GI 相关的结果，这些结果表明牙周内窥镜治疗牙周炎具有一些优于传统牙周刮治和根面平整术（SRP）的优势。4 项研究的作者探索了 PD，发现牙周内窥镜治疗和传统 SRP 之间无差异。作者无法对 BOP、GI 或 PD 的研究结果进行 meta 分析。牙周内窥镜辅助清创后的剩余牙石百分比明显小于传统 SRP 后的剩余牙石百分比（平均差异，-3.18；95%置信区间，-4.86 至-1.49；P=.002；异质性 I=74%）。作者发现牙周内窥镜治疗比传统 SRP 花费的时间显著更多（平均差异，6.01 分钟；95%置信区间，4.23 至 7.8；P<.00001；异质性 I=0%）。
与传统 SRP 相比，牙周内窥镜治疗可能在清除牙石方面提供了额外的益处，尽管操作时间可能会更长。关于 BOP、GI 和 PD，作者没有发现足够的证据支持使用牙周内窥镜和传统 SRP 之间的差异。作者得出结论，需要进一步的科学研究来评估牙周内窥镜治疗牙周炎的效果。
