Conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on nonsurgical treatment of patients with chronic periodontitis by means of scaling and root planing (SRP) with or without adjuncts.
A panel of experts ...convened by the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs conducted a search of PubMed (MEDLINE) and Embase for randomized controlled trials of SRP with or without the use of adjuncts with clinical attachment level (CAL) outcomes in trials at least 6 months in duration and published in English through July 2014. The authors assessed individual study bias by using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and conducted meta-analyses to obtain the summary effect estimates and their precision and to assess heterogeneity. The authors used funnel plots and Egger tests to assess publication bias when there were more than 10 studies. The authors used a modified version of the US Preventive Services Task Force methods to assess the overall level of certainty in the evidence.
The panel included 72 articles on the effectiveness of SRP with or without the following: systemic antimicrobials, a systemic host modulator (subantimicrobial-dose doxycycline), locally delivered antimicrobials (chlorhexidine chips, doxycycline hyclate gel, and minocycline microspheres), and a variety of nonsurgical lasers (photodynamic therapy with a diode laser, a diode laser, neodymium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet lasers, and erbium lasers).
With a moderate level of certainty, the panel found approximately a 0.5-millimeter average improvement in CAL with SRP. Combinations of SRP with assorted adjuncts resulted in a range of average CAL improvements between 0.2 and 0.6 mm over SRP alone. The panel judged the following 4 adjunctive therapies as beneficial with a moderate level of certainty: systemic subantimicrobial-dose doxycycline, systemic antimicrobials, chlorhexidine chips, and photodynamic therapy with a diode laser. There was a low level of certainty in the benefits of the other included adjunctive therapies. The panel provides clinical recommendations in the associated clinical practice guideline.
A panel of experts convened by the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs presents an evidence-based clinical practice guideline on nonsurgical treatment of patients with chronic ...periodontitis by means of scaling and root planing (SRP) with or without adjuncts.
The authors developed this clinical practice guideline according to the American Dental Association's evidence-based guideline development methodology. This guideline is founded on a systematic review of the evidence that included 72 research articles providing clinical attachment level data on trials of at least 6 months' duration and published in English through July 2014. The strength of each recommendation (strong, in favor, weak, expert opinion for, expert opinion against, and against) is based on an assessment of the level of certainty in the evidence for the treatment's benefit in combination with an assessment of the balance between the magnitude of the benefit and the potential for adverse effects.
For patients with chronic periodontitis, SRP showed a moderate benefit, and the benefits were judged to outweigh potential adverse effects. The authors voted in favor of SRP as the initial nonsurgical treatment for chronic periodontitis. Although systemic subantimicrobial-dose doxycycline and systemic antimicrobials showed similar magnitudes of benefits as adjunctive therapies to SRP, they were recommended at different strengths (in favor for systemic subantimicrobial-dose doxycycline and weak for systemic antimicrobials) because of the higher potential for adverse effects with higher doses of antimicrobials. The strengths of 2 other recommendations are weak: chlorhexidine chips and photodynamic therapy with a diode laser. Recommendations for the other local antimicrobials (doxycycline hyclate gel and minocycline microspheres) were expert opinion for. Recommendations for the nonsurgical use of other lasers as SRP adjuncts were limited to expert opinion against because there was uncertainty regarding their clinical benefits and benefit-to-adverse effects balance. Note that expert opinion for does not imply endorsement but instead signifies that evidence is lacking and the level of certainty in the evidence is low.
Background The authors conducted a systematic review on this research question: “In populations where nondentists conduct diagnostic, treatment planning, and/or irreversible/surgical dental ...procedures, is there a change in disease increment, untreated dental disease, and/or cost-effectiveness of dental care?” Methods The authors searched 12 electronic databases for articles published through February 2012 and hand searched relevant articles. They assessed the risk of bias of included studies and extracted data. Results The authors screened 7,701 citations, resulting in 18 observational studies that met the inclusion criteria. They judged 13 of the studies to be at high risk of bias, five at moderate risk and one at low risk. The authors found no data regarding cost effectiveness, irreversible diagnostic procedures or diseases other than caries. Conclusions The authors concluded that the quality of the evidence was poor. They found that in select groups in which participants received irreversible dental treatment from teams that included midlevel providers, caries increment, caries severity or both decreased across time; however, there was no difference in caries increment, caries severity or both compared with those in populations in which dentists provided all irreversible treatment. In select groups in which participants had received irreversible dental treatment from teams that included midlevel providers, there was a decrease in untreated caries across time and a decrease in untreated caries compared with that in populations in which dentists provided all treatment. Clinical Implications Generalizability of results to populations other than those studied is limited owing to the age of some of the studies, as well as to clinical and methodological heterogeneity; consequently, the conclusions should be viewed with caution.
Twenty-five years of research focused on various aspects of laser-mediated periodontal therapy have yielded a significant amount of conflicting evidence and a considerable amount of controversy. ...Despite the inconsistencies and the polemics, the use of lasers, either as a monotherapy or adjunctive to traditional therapy, is still promoted by some expert clinicians, key opinion leaders, and commercial entities. This article is protected by copyright. All rights reserved.
PDF
