Suppr超能文献

支持性牙周治疗期间替代或辅助专业机械菌斑清除方法的疗效:一项系统评价和荟萃分析。

Efficacy of alternative or additional methods to professional mechanical plaque removal during supportive periodontal therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

作者信息

Trombelli Leonardo, Farina Roberto, Pollard Alexander, Claydon Nicholas, Franceschetti Giovanni, Khan Iftekhar, West Nicola

机构信息

Research Centre for the Study of Periodontal and Peri-Implant Diseases, University of Ferrara, Ferrara, Italy.

Operative Unit of Dentistry, Azienda Unità Sanitaria Locale (AUSL), Ferrara, Italy.

出版信息

J Clin Periodontol. 2020 Jul;47 Suppl 22:144-154. doi: 10.1111/jcpe.13269.

Abstract

AIMS

To systematically review the literature addressing the following focused questions: "What is the efficacy of either (#1) alternative or (#2) additional methods to professional mechanical plaque removal (PMPR) on progression of attachment loss during supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) in periodontitis patients?".

METHODS

A systematic search for randomized clinical trials was performed. Change in clinical attachment level (CAL) from baseline was the primary outcome.

RESULTS

Routine PMPR performed with either a combination of ultrasonic/hand instruments or Er:Yag laser showed similarly effective in preventing CAL loss. Moreover, a routine SPT regimen based on PMPR led to stability of CAL irrespective of a daily sub-antimicrobial doxycycline dose (SDD). Finally, an adjunctive photodynamic therapy (PDT) did not enhance the magnitude of CAL gain when sites with probing depth ≥4 mm were repeatedly treated. After pooling all data, the results of the meta-analysis showed no statistical differences in CAL change from baseline: mean overall CAL change was -0.233 mm (95% confidence interval: -1.065, 0.598; p = .351).

CONCLUSIONS

Weak evidence indicate that in treated periodontitis patients enrolled in a 3-4 month SPT based on PMPR, Er:Yag laser (as alternative), SDD and PDT (as additional) do not produce a greater clinical effect on periodontal conditions compared to PMPR.

摘要

目的

系统回顾文献,以解决以下重点问题:“在牙周炎患者的支持性牙周治疗(SPT)期间,(1)替代或(2)辅助专业机械性菌斑清除(PMPR)的方法对附着丧失进展的疗效如何?”

方法

进行了随机临床试验的系统检索。临床附着水平(CAL)相对于基线的变化是主要结局。

结果

使用超声/手动器械组合或铒激光进行的常规PMPR在预防CAL丧失方面显示出相似的效果。此外,基于PMPR的常规SPT方案可使CAL保持稳定,而与每日亚抗菌剂量强力霉素(SDD)无关。最后,当对探诊深度≥4mm的部位进行反复治疗时,辅助性光动力疗法(PDT)并未增加CAL增加的幅度。汇总所有数据后,荟萃分析结果显示CAL相对于基线的变化无统计学差异:平均总体CAL变化为-0.233mm(95%置信区间:-1.065,0.598;p = 0.3***51)。

结论

证据薄弱表明,在接受基于PMPR的3 - 4个月SPT治疗的牙周炎患者中,与PMPR相比,铒激光(作为替代方法)、SDD和PDT(作为辅助方法)对牙周状况并未产生更大的临床效果。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验