Quintessence international (Berlin, Germany : 1985) · 2015
Periodontal risk and recall interval evaluation after a program of comprehensive supragingival plaque control.
Клиническое исследованиеСтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Butze Juliane Pereira, Angst Patrícia Daniela Melchiors, Oppermann Rui Vicente, Gomes Sabrina Carvalho
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To investigate if a comprehensive supragingival control can modify the periodontal risk and suggested recall interval over time, using an adaptation of an available model of periodontal risk assessment (PRA, Perio-Tools® website).
METHOD AND MATERIALS: Single-arm clinical trial data (visible plaque and gingival bleeding indexes, periodontal probing depth, bleeding on probing, and clinical attachment level from baseline (day 0, T0), day 30 (T1), and day 180 (T2) from 50 moderate-to-severe periodontitis patients (25 never-smokers; 25 smokers) submitted to a comprehensive supragingival plaque control regimen for 180 days were subjected to a secondary analysis using an adaptation of the PRA. The periodontal risk (high, medium, or low) and suggested recall interval were calculated per patient and at each experimental time. General linear models and the Cochran test were used for statistical analysis, considering the dependence of the data.
RESULTS: All patients were at high risk at baseline. At T1, 20% migrated to medium-risk (P = .002). At T2, 38% and 8% exhibited medium- and low-risk, respectively (P ≤ .001). The reduction between T1 and T2 was significant (P = .001). The mean recall interval increased from 3.0 ± 0.0 (T0) to 3.6 ± 1.2 (T1), and 4.9 ± 2.6 months at T2 (P < .003). The effect that smoking habit exerted on risk was limited to the first 30 days, and no effect on recall interval was observed.
CONCLUSION: The oral hygiene condition is an important indicator that influences the risk and the recall interval over time, thus deserving attention when evaluating the individual periodontal prognosis.
METHOD AND MATERIALS: Single-arm clinical trial data (visible plaque and gingival bleeding indexes, periodontal probing depth, bleeding on probing, and clinical attachment level from baseline (day 0, T0), day 30 (T1), and day 180 (T2) from 50 moderate-to-severe periodontitis patients (25 never-smokers; 25 smokers) submitted to a comprehensive supragingival plaque control regimen for 180 days were subjected to a secondary analysis using an adaptation of the PRA. The periodontal risk (high, medium, or low) and suggested recall interval were calculated per patient and at each experimental time. General linear models and the Cochran test were used for statistical analysis, considering the dependence of the data.
RESULTS: All patients were at high risk at baseline. At T1, 20% migrated to medium-risk (P = .002). At T2, 38% and 8% exhibited medium- and low-risk, respectively (P ≤ .001). The reduction between T1 and T2 was significant (P = .001). The mean recall interval increased from 3.0 ± 0.0 (T0) to 3.6 ± 1.2 (T1), and 4.9 ± 2.6 months at T2 (P < .003). The effect that smoking habit exerted on risk was limited to the first 30 days, and no effect on recall interval was observed.
CONCLUSION: The oral hygiene condition is an important indicator that influences the risk and the recall interval over time, thus deserving attention when evaluating the individual periodontal prognosis.