Clinical and microbiological effect of frequent subgingival air polishing on periodontal conditions: a split-mouth randomized controlled trial

Subgingival Use of Air-Polishing Powders: Status of Knowledge: A Systematic Review

Effective subgingival biofilm removal is crucial for achieving positive and stable outcomes in periodontal therapy, forming an indispensable part of any periodontal treatment approach. The development of air-polishing tools has emerged as a promising alternative to hand and ultrasonic scalers for dental biofilm removal. The objective of this systematic review was to assess existing literature regarding the subgingival use of various types of air-polishing powders, as an effective method of subgingival biofilm control. For this, 55 articles on this subjected were sourced from searched databases and subjected to an evaluation process of their contained information, which was subsequently structured and compiled into this manuscript. The existing literature acknowledges that good subgingival biofilm control is essential for the success of periodontal therapy, including through subgingival air-polishing, as an adjunctive procedure. This approach has the potential to enhance patient comfort during and after subgingival mechanical plaque removal, thereby mitigating damage to periodontal structures. Consequently, it may lead to improved healing capabilities within the periodontal tissues and the formation of a more stable reparative gingival junctional epithelium.

The efficacy of subgingival air polishing and subgingival debridement in periodontal support therapy: a meta-analysis

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.

Clinical Trial for Evaluating the Effectiveness and Safety of a New Dental Plaque Removal Device: Microscale Mist Unit

This study evaluates the effectiveness and safety of a microscale mist unit (MSM-UNIT) that sprays high-speed fine water droplets to remove dental plaque adhering to the oral mucosa (tongue and palate) and tooth surface. Fifteen patients who had difficulty self-managing sufficient oral care were included in this study. Effectiveness was evaluated for at least five patients' tongues, palate mucosas, and tooth surfaces, and safety evaluation was conducted at all three sites for all patients. Effectiveness was evaluated using the rate of degree of dental plaque removal. Safety was evaluated using a numerical rating scale (NRS) for pain and symptoms of inflammation. An operator who performed treatment and an evaluator who evaluated effectiveness and safety were designated. In addition, an image judgment committee judged effectiveness. Although evaluation of the tongue varied between the evaluators and the image judgment committee, the rates of degree for all plaque removal increased in all regions. In addition, low pain NRS results and minimal symptoms of inflammation were observed and within an acceptable range. The MSM-UNIT can be used effectively and safely for removing oral plaque not only from teeth, but also from the oral mucosa.

The efficacy of the adjunct use of subgingival air-polishing therapy with erythritol powder compared to conventional debridement alone during initial non-surgical periodontal therapy

Aim

To assess the efficacy of the adjunct use of a subgingival erythritol powder air‐polishing device (EPAP) in comparison to conventional subgingival instrumentation alone during initial non‐surgical periodontal therapy.

Materials and Methods

Twenty‐one patients with generalized Stages 2 and 3 grade B periodontitis were included in this single centre, single blinded, split‐mouth, randomized clinical trial. Teeth on the control side were treated with conventional hand and ultrasonic instrumentation, while those on the contralateral test side was treated using EPAP as adjunct to conventional subgingival instrumentation with hand and ultrasonic instruments. Three months after initial instrumentation, persisting pockets of ≥4 mm were re‐treated, in both control and test sides, again with the respective treatment approach—subgingival instrumentation alone on control, and subgingival instrumentation + EPAP on test side. Clinical parameters such as probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing, and relative attachment level were recorded at baseline and 3 and 6 months following the initial instrumentation. Subgingival plaque samples were collected at baseline, immediately post surgery, as well as at 1 week, 1 month, 3 months, and 6 months after initial instrumentation.

Results

In the test group after 6 months, a significantly larger number of initially deep pockets (PPD ≥ 5.5 mm) were reduced to shallow (PPD ≤ 3.4 mm), and a larger attachment gain was observed. No statistically significant microbiological differences could be found between test and control group.

Conclusions

The results of the present study indicate that the adjunct use of subgingival airflow therapy with EPAP during initial non‐surgical periodontal therapy might be beneficial in initially deep pockets (PPD ≥ 5.5 mm).

Efficacy of air polishing in comparison with hand instruments and/or power-driven instruments in supportive periodontal therapy and implant maintenance: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) is the key for a stable periodontal health following active treatment. Likewise, implant maintenance is crucial following implant placement. This systematic review aimed to assess clinical outcomes, patients' perception, and cost-effectiveness of repeated periodontal therapy with air polishing devices (APDs) in comparison with hand instruments and/or power-driven instruments (conventional interventions) in SPT and implant maintenance.

METHODS

Electronic search for randomised controlled clinical trials with minimum 6 months follow-up for SPT and implant maintenance programme was conducted for data published from 01 January 2000 to 30 April 2020 using multiple databases and hand searching. Risk of bias was assessed using the Revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool (RoB 2).

RESULTS

A total of 823 articles were screened. 4 SPT and 2 implant maintenance studies were eligible for inclusion. For SPT, repeated APDs interventions revealed no statistically significant difference when compared to the conventional interventions (weighted mean difference [WMD] 0.11 mm, p = 0.08). Likewise, no statistical difference was noted in terms of percentage of bleeding on probing (BOP) and clinical attachment level (CAL) gain. APDs were associated with lower pain score (based on Visual Analogue Scale) and higher patient acceptance in SPT studies. For implant maintenance, APDs resulted in reduction in PPD and percentage of BOP. However, CAL gain was comparable between the two groups. In terms of patient reported outcomes, no implant maintenance studies recorded any forms of patient reported outcomes. In addition, no studies reported on economic evaluation of APDs in both SPT and implant maintenance.

CONCLUSION

Within the limitations of this systematic review and meta-analysis, repeated subgingival debridement using APDs in SPT resulted in similar clinical outcomes but better patients' comfort when compared to the conventional interventions. For implant maintenance, there is limited evidence to show that repeated application of APDs leads to improved clinical outcomes when compared to conventional treatments.

Efficacy of erythritol powder air-polishing in active and supportive periodontal therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

This systematic review aimed to analyse available evidence to answer two focused questions about the efficacy of erythritol powder air-polishing (EPAP) (i) as an adjunctive during active periodontal therapy (APT) and (ii) as an alternative to hand/ultrasonic instrumentation during supportive periodontal therapy (SPT). Additionally, microbiological outcomes and patient's comfort/perceptions were assessed as secondary outcomes.

METHODS

PubMed, Cochrane and Medline were searched for relevant articles published before February 2021 following PRISMA guidelines. The search was conducted by three independent reviewers, and the agreement was measured by Cohen's kappa score. Out of 1043 articles, eight randomized clinical trials were selected for systematic review and quantitative synthesis. Only periodontal parameters, such as clinical attachment level (CAL), probing pocket depth (PPD) and bleeding on probing (BoP), showed homogeneity and, thus, were selected for meta-analysis.

RESULTS

The improvement in PPD and BoP scores after using EPAP was comparable with hand/ultrasonic instrumentation during both APT and SPT. Significant CAL gain was achieved with EPAP during APT (0.16 mm, p < 0.02) compared with hand/ultrasonic instrumentation at the end point, whereas non-significant CAL gain was achieved during SPT. No differences were observed regarding microbiological outcomes between the two treatment modalities. However, EPAP inflicted less pain and was better perceived by the patients.

CONCLUSION

Erythritol powder air-polishing can substitute hand/ultrasonic instrumentation for SPT, and CAL gain is significantly improved when EPAP is used as an adjunct during APT. For microbiological outcomes, no significant differences were observed between the two approaches; however, EPAP was better tolerated by the patients than hand/ultrasonic instrumentation.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

Erythritol powder air-polishing can be used as an adjunct during APT and as an alternative to conventional mechanical debridement during SPT.