Journal of clinical periodontology · 2008
A systematic review of the effects of full-mouth debridement with and without antiseptics in patients with chronic periodontitis.
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяМетаанализПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАСистематический обзорНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Lang Niklaus P, Tan Wah Ching, Krähenmann Michael A, Zwahlen Marcel
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical and microbiological effects of full-mouth debridement with (FMD) and without the use of antiseptics [full-mouth scaling and root planing (FMSRP)] in comparison with conventional staged debridement (CSD) in patients with chronic periodontitis after at least 6 months.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: The search in MEDLINE (PubMed), covering a period of 1975 to October 2007, and hand searching yielded 207 titles. Forty-two abstracts and 17 full-text articles were screened for inclusion.
RESULTS: Twelve articles allowed a direct comparison of FMD with CSD, FMSRP with CSD and FMD with FMSRP. Probing pocket depth reductions were significantly greater (0.2 mm) with FMD and FMSRP compared with CSD. Moreover, a modest reduction in BOP (9%) favoured FMD. Likewise, clinical attachment levels were improved by 0.2-0.4 mm in favour of FMD and FMSRP, respectively. In all comparisons, single-rooted teeth and deep pockets benefitted slightly from FMD and FMSRP. Limited differences in the changes of the subgingival microbiota were noted between the treatment modalities.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the significant differences of modest magnitude, FMD or FMSRP do not provide clinically relevant advantages over CSD. Hence, all three treatment modalities may be recommended for debridement in the initial treatment of patients with chronic periodontitis.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: The search in MEDLINE (PubMed), covering a period of 1975 to October 2007, and hand searching yielded 207 titles. Forty-two abstracts and 17 full-text articles were screened for inclusion.
RESULTS: Twelve articles allowed a direct comparison of FMD with CSD, FMSRP with CSD and FMD with FMSRP. Probing pocket depth reductions were significantly greater (0.2 mm) with FMD and FMSRP compared with CSD. Moreover, a modest reduction in BOP (9%) favoured FMD. Likewise, clinical attachment levels were improved by 0.2-0.4 mm in favour of FMD and FMSRP, respectively. In all comparisons, single-rooted teeth and deep pockets benefitted slightly from FMD and FMSRP. Limited differences in the changes of the subgingival microbiota were noted between the treatment modalities.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite the significant differences of modest magnitude, FMD or FMSRP do not provide clinically relevant advantages over CSD. Hence, all three treatment modalities may be recommended for debridement in the initial treatment of patients with chronic periodontitis.