Evidence-Based Dentistry Pub Date : 2023-07-11 , DOI: 10.1038/s41432-023-00910-7 Zuwei Nong 1, 2 , Zuke Ya 1, 2 , Jiali Zheng 1, 2 , Xiangzhi Yong 1, 2 , Renchuan Tao 1, 2
Objective
To assess whether there is sufficient evidence of a difference in efficacy between subgingival air polishing (SubAP) and subgingival debridement as periodontal support treatment. The systematic review protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database under no. CRD42020213042.
Methods
A comprehensive search was conducted using eight online databases to develop straightforward clinical questions and search strategies, from their inception to 27 January 2023. The references of identified reports were also retrieved for inclusion in the analysis. The risk-of-bias of the included studies was evaluated using the Revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool (RoB 2). A meta-analysis was performed on five clinical indicators using the Stata 16 software.
Results
Twelve randomized controlled trials were ultimately included, and most included studies had varying degrees of risk-of-bias. The results of the meta-analysis indicated that there was no significant difference between SubAP and subgingival scaling in terms of improving probing depth (PD), clinical attachment loss (CAL), plaque index (PLI), and bleeding on probing% (BOP%). The results of the visual analogue scale score analysis indicated that SubAP produced less discomfort than did subgingival scaling.
Discussion
SubAP can provide better treatment comfort than subgingival debridement. There was no significant difference in the efficacy of the two modalities in improving PD, CAL, and BOP% in supportive periodontal therapy.
Conclusion
Currently, evidence for assessing the difference in the efficacy of SubAP and subgingival debridement in improving the PLI is insufficient, and further high-quality clinical studies are needed.
中文翻译:
龈下空气抛光和龈下清创术在牙周支持治疗中的疗效:荟萃分析
客观的
评估是否有足够的证据表明龈下空气抛光(SubAP)和龈下清创术作为牙周支持治疗的疗效差异。系统评价方案已在 PROSPERO 数据库中注册,注册号为:CRD42020213042。
方法
使用八个在线数据库进行了全面检索,以制定简单的临床问题和检索策略,从最初到 2023 年 1 月 27 日。还检索了已识别报告的参考文献以纳入分析。使用修订的 Cochrane 偏倚风险工具 (RoB 2) 评估纳入研究的偏倚风险。使用Stata 16软件对五项临床指标进行荟萃分析。
结果
最终纳入了十二项随机对照试验,大多数纳入的研究都存在不同程度的偏倚风险。荟萃分析结果表明,SubAP 和龈下洁牙在改善探诊深度 (PD)、临床附着丧失 (CAL)、菌斑指数 (PLI) 和探诊出血百分比 (BOP%) 方面没有显着差异)。视觉模拟量表评分分析的结果表明,SubAP 比龈下洁治产生的不适更少。
讨论
SubAP 可以提供比龈下清创更好的治疗舒适度。两种方式在改善牙周支持治疗中的 PD、CAL 和 BOP% 方面的功效没有显着差异。
结论
目前,评估SubAP和龈下清创术在改善PLI方面的疗效差异的证据不足,需要进一步的高质量临床研究。