Ho King-Lun Dominic, Fok Melissa Rachel, Li Kar Yan, Pelekos Georgios, Leung Wai Keung
Periodontology and Implant Dentistry, Faculty of Dentistry, the University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Clinical Research Centre, Faculty of Dentistry, the University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
Clin Exp Dent Res. 2025 Aug;11(4):e70196. doi: 10.1002/cre2.70196.
Periodontitis is a multifactorial inflammatory disease leading to the progressive destruction of the tooth-supporting apparatus. The management of residual periodontal pockets remains a challenge for Step 3 periodontal therapy. This systematic review aims to evaluate the potential and efficacy of the periodontal endoscope in managing residual periodontal pockets during Step 3 periodontal therapy.
A comprehensive search was conducted in Medline, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, Scopus, and Web of Science databases up to December 2024. Studies included were randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing periodontal endoscope-assisted subgingival debridement (EASD) with repeated root surface debridement (RSD) and access flap periodontal surgery (AFPS). Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed independently by two reviewers.
Five RCTs were included, involving 155 subjects and 4072 sites. EASD showed a significantly higher periodontal probing depth (PPD) reduction compared to repeated RSD, with a weighted mean difference (WMD) of 0.5 mm (95% CI: 0.19-0.81) at 3-month postoperation. At 6-month postoperation, the WMD of PPD and clinical attachment level (CAL) changes were 0.84 mm (95% CI: 0.60-1.09) and 0.89 mm (95% CI: 0.45-1.34), respectively, in favor of EASD. EASD showed a significantly higher prevalence ratio (20%) of pocket resolution (PPD ≤ 4 mm) compared to repeated RSD at 6-month postoperation. No significant differences were observed between EASD and AFPS in the changes of CAL, PPD and prevalence of pocket resolution (PPD ≤ 4 mm). The overall certainty of the evidence was deemed to be "low" for EASD versus repeated RSD comparisons and "moderate" for EASD versus AFPS comparisons.
EASD demonstrated superior clinical outcomes compared to repeated RSD in managing residual periodontal pockets. Further high-quality research is necessary to validate these findings and explore the long-term benefits of EASD.
牙周炎是一种多因素炎症性疾病,会导致牙齿支持组织的渐进性破坏。残留牙周袋的处理仍然是牙周治疗第三步的一项挑战。本系统评价旨在评估牙周内窥镜在牙周治疗第三步中处理残留牙周袋的潜力和疗效。
截至2024年12月,在Medline、PubMed、Cochrane图书馆、Embase、Scopus和科学网数据库中进行了全面检索。纳入的研究为随机对照试验(RCT),比较了牙周内窥镜辅助龈下刮治(EASD)与重复根面刮治(RSD)及翻瓣牙周手术(AFPS)。由两名 reviewers 独立进行数据提取和偏倚风险评估。
纳入了五项RCT,涉及155名受试者和4072个部位。与重复RSD相比,EASD术后3个月时牙周探诊深度(PPD)降低显著更高,加权平均差(WMD)为0.5毫米(95%可信区间:0.19 - 0.81)。术后6个月时,PPD和临床附着水平(CAL)变化的WMD分别为0.84毫米(95%可信区间:0.60 - 1.09)和0.89毫米(95%可信区间:0.45 - 1.34),有利于EASD。术后6个月时,与重复RSD相比,EASD的牙周袋消退(PPD≤4毫米)患病率显著更高(20%)。在CAL、PPD变化和牙周袋消退(PPD≤4毫米)患病率方面,EASD与AFPS之间未观察到显著差异。对于EASD与重复RSD的比较,证据的总体确定性被认为是“低”,对于EASD与AFPS的比较,证据的总体确定性被认为是“中等”。
在处理残留牙周袋方面,EASD与重复RSD相比显示出更好的临床结果。需要进一步的高质量研究来验证这些发现并探索EASD的长期益处。