Journal of clinical periodontology · 2024
Non-surgical retreatment versus papillary preservation flap surgery for residual pockets: A randomized controlled trial with clinical and patient-reported outcomes.
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеСравнительное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Barbato Luigi, Noce Desirée, Di Martino Maria, Castelluzzo Walter, Spoleti Folco, Rupe Cosimo, Nieri Michele, Cairo Francesco
Аннотация
AIM: To compare the efficacy of non-surgical re-instrumentation (NSR) and papillary preservation flap (PPF) surgery at single-rooted teeth with residual pockets.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with at least a residual pocket depth (PD ≥ 5 mm) after Steps I and II were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive NSR or PPF surgery. The primary outcome was PD reduction, and secondary outcomes were clinical attachment level (CAL) change and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Outcome variables were measured at baseline, 3 and 6 months. The examiner was blinded. Statistical analysis, one site for each patient, included descriptive statistics and analysis of covariance.
RESULTS: Forty-six participants were enrolled, and one patient dropped out in the PPF group. After 6 months, both treatments resulted in significant PD reduction (1.3 ± 1.2 mm, p = .009 NSR; 2.0 ± 0.7 mm, p < .001 PPF) and CAL gain (1.0 ± 2.4 mm, p = .031 NSR; 1.4 ± 0.8 mm, p < .001 PPF). PD reduction between groups was not statistically significant (diff: 0.6 mm; 95% confidence interval [CI] [-0.3 to 1.5]; p = .167). Pocket closure was 61% NSR versus 86% PPF (p = .091). Smoking was associated with less PD reduction of almost 1 mm in both treatments. Treatment time was longer for PPF surgery, but PROMs and post-operative pain were similar between groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Both NSR and PPF reduced PD without significant difference between treatments at 6 months. PPF surgery may offer faster PD reduction, but smoking habits reduce treatment efficacy.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with at least a residual pocket depth (PD ≥ 5 mm) after Steps I and II were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive NSR or PPF surgery. The primary outcome was PD reduction, and secondary outcomes were clinical attachment level (CAL) change and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Outcome variables were measured at baseline, 3 and 6 months. The examiner was blinded. Statistical analysis, one site for each patient, included descriptive statistics and analysis of covariance.
RESULTS: Forty-six participants were enrolled, and one patient dropped out in the PPF group. After 6 months, both treatments resulted in significant PD reduction (1.3 ± 1.2 mm, p = .009 NSR; 2.0 ± 0.7 mm, p < .001 PPF) and CAL gain (1.0 ± 2.4 mm, p = .031 NSR; 1.4 ± 0.8 mm, p < .001 PPF). PD reduction between groups was not statistically significant (diff: 0.6 mm; 95% confidence interval [CI] [-0.3 to 1.5]; p = .167). Pocket closure was 61% NSR versus 86% PPF (p = .091). Smoking was associated with less PD reduction of almost 1 mm in both treatments. Treatment time was longer for PPF surgery, but PROMs and post-operative pain were similar between groups.
CONCLUSIONS: Both NSR and PPF reduced PD without significant difference between treatments at 6 months. PPF surgery may offer faster PD reduction, but smoking habits reduce treatment efficacy.