Full-mouth treatment vs. the conventional staged approach for periodontal infection control

Full-mouth treatment modalities (within 24 hours) for periodontitis in adults

BACKGROUND

Periodontitis is a highly prevalent, chronic inflammation that causes damage to the soft tissues and bones supporting the teeth. Conventional treatment is quadrant scaling and root planing (the second step of periodontal therapy), which comprises scaling and root planing of teeth in one quadrant of the mouth at a time, with the four different sessions separated by at least one week. Alternative protocols for anti-infective periodontal therapy have been introduced to help enhance treatment outcomes: full-mouth scaling (subgingival instrumentation of all quadrants within 24 hours), or full-mouth disinfection (subgingival instrumentation of all quadrants in 24 hours plus adjunctive antiseptic). We use the older term 'scaling and root planing' (SRP) interchangeably with the newer term 'subgingival instrumentation' in this iteration of the review, which updates one originally published in 2008 and first updated in 2015.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical effects of full-mouth scaling or full-mouth disinfection (within 24 hours) for the treatment of periodontitis compared to conventional quadrant subgingival instrumentation (over a series of visits at least one week apart) and to evaluate whether there was a difference in clinical effects between full-mouth disinfection and full-mouth scaling.

SEARCH METHODS

An information specialist searched five databases up to 17 June 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) lasting at least three months that evaluated full-mouth scaling and root planing within 24 hours, with or without adjunctive use of an antiseptic, compared to conventional quadrant SRP (control). Participants had a clinical diagnosis of (chronic) periodontitis according to the International Classification of Periodontal Diseases from 1999. A new periodontitis classification was launched in 2018; however, we used the 1999 classification for inclusion or exclusion of studies, as most studies used it. We excluded studies of people with systemic disorders, taking antibiotics or with the older diagnosis of 'aggressive periodontitis'.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Several review authors independently conducted data extraction and risk of bias assessment (based on randomisation method, allocation concealment, examiner blinding and completeness of follow-up). Our primary outcomes were tooth loss and change in probing pocket depth (PPD); secondary outcomes were change in probing attachment (i.e. clinical attachment level (CAL)), bleeding on probing (BOP), adverse events and pocket closure (the number/proportion of sites with PPD of 4 mm or less after treatment). We followed Cochrane's methodological guidelines for data extraction and analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 20 RCTs, with 944 participants, in this updated review. No studies assessed the primary outcome tooth loss. Thirteen trials compared full-mouth scaling and root planing within 24 hours without the use of antiseptic (FMS) versus control, 13 trials compared full-mouth scaling and root planing within 24 hours with adjunctive use of an antiseptic (FMD) versus control, and six trials compared FMS with FMD. Of the 13 trials comparing FMS versus control, we assessed three at high risk of bias, six at low risk of bias and four at unclear risk of bias. We assessed our certainty about the evidence as low or very low for the outcomes in this comparison. There was no evidence for a benefit for FMS over control for change in PPD, gain in CAL or reduction in BOP at six to eight months (PPD: mean difference (MD) 0.03 mm, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.14 to 0.20; 5 trials, 148 participants; CAL: MD 0.10 mm, 95% CI -0.05 to 0.26; 5 trials, 148 participants; BOP: MD 2.64%, 95% CI -8.81 to 14.09; 3 trials, 80 participants). There was evidence of heterogeneity for BOP (I² = 50%), but none for PPD and CAL. Of the 13 trials comparing FMD versus control, we judged four at high risk of bias, one at low risk of bias and eight at unclear risk of bias. At six to eight months, there was no evidence for a benefit for FMD over control for change in PPD or CAL (PPD: MD 0.11 mm, 95% CI -0.04 to 0.27; 6 trials, 224 participants; low-certainty evidence; CAL: 0.07 mm, 95% CI -0.11 to 0.24; 6 trials, 224 participants; low-certainty evidence). The analyses found no evidence of a benefit for FMD over control for BOP (very low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of heterogeneity for PPD or CAL, but considerable evidence of heterogeneity for BOP, attributed to one study. There were no consistent differences in these outcomes between intervention and control (low- to very low-certainty evidence). Of the six trials comparing FMS and FMD, we judged two trials at high risk of bias, one at low risk of bias and three as unclear. At six to eight months, there was no evidence of a benefit of FMD over FMS for change in PPD or gain in CAL (PPD: MD -0.11 mm, 95% CI -0.30 to 0.07; P = 0.22; 4 trials, 112 participants; low-certainty evidence; CAL: MD -0.05 mm, 95% CI -0.23 to -0.13; P = 0.58; 4 trials, 112 participants; low-certainty evidence). There was no evidence of a difference between FMS and FMD for BOP at any time point (P = 0.98; 2 trials, 22 participants; low- to very low-certainty evidence). There was evidence of heterogeneity for BOP (I² = 52%), but not for PPD or CAL. Thirteen studies predefined adverse events as an outcome; three reported an event after FMD or FMS. The most important harm identified was an increase in body temperature. We assessed the certainty of the evidence for most comparisons and outcomes as low because of design limitations leading to risk of bias, and the small number of trials and participants, leading to imprecision in the effect estimates.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The inclusion of nine new RCTs in this updated review has not changed the conclusions of the previous version of the review. There is still no clear evidence that FMS or FMD approaches provide additional clinical benefit compared to conventional mechanical treatment for adult periodontitis. In practice, the decision to select one approach to non-surgical periodontal therapy over another should include patient preference and the convenience of the treatment schedule.

Patient-reported experiences and outcomes following two different approaches for non-surgical periodontal treatment: a randomized field study

Context

The current report is part of a prospective, multi-center, two-arm, quasi-randomized field study focusing on the effectiveness in general praxis of evidence-based procedures in the non-surgical treatment of patients with periodontitis.

Objective

The specific aims were to (i) evaluate patient-reported experience and outcome measures of treatment following a guided approach to periodontal infection control (GPIC) compared to conventional non-surgical therapy (CNST) and to (ii) identify potential predictors of subjective treatment outcomes and patient’s adherence to self-performed infection control, i.e. adequate oral hygiene.

Methods

The study sample consisted of 494 patients treated per protocol with questionnaire- and clinical data at baseline and 6-months. The GPIC approach (test) comprised patient education for adequate oral hygiene prior to a single session of full-mouth ultra-sonic instrumentation, while the CNST approach (control) comprised education and instrumentation (scaling and root planing) integrated at required number of consecutive appointments. Clinical examinations and treatment were performed by Dental Hygienists, i.e. not blinded. Data were processed with bivariate statistics for comparison between treatment groups and with multiple regression models to identify potential predictors of subjective and clinical outcomes. The primary clinical outcome was gingival bleeding scores.

Results

No substantial differences were found between the two treatment approaches regarding patient-reported experiences or outcomes of therapy. Patients’ experiences of definitely being involved in therapy decisions was a significant predictor for a desirable subjective and clinical outcome in terms of; (i) that oral health was considered as much improved after therapy compared to how it was before, (ii) that the treatment definitively had been worth the cost and efforts, and (iii) adherence to self-performed periodontal infection control. In addition, to be a current smoker counteracted patients’ satisfaction with oral health outcome, while gingival bleeding scores at baseline predicted clinical outcome in terms of bleeding scores at 6-months.

Conclusions

The results suggest that there are no differences with regard to patient-reported experiences and outcomes of therapy following a GPIC approach to periodontal infection control versus CNST. Patients’ experiences of being involved in therapy decisions seem to be an important factor for satisfaction with care and for adherence to self-performed periodontal infection control.

Registered at: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02168621).

Subgingival instrumentation for treatment of periodontitis. A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the efficacy of subgingival instrumentation (PICOS-1), sonic/ultrasonic/hand instruments (PICOS-2) and different subgingival instrumentation delivery protocols (PICOS-3) to treat periodontitis.

METHODS

Systematic electronic search (CENTRAL/MEDLINE/EMBASE/SCOPUS/LILACS) to March 2019 was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCT) reporting on subgingival instrumentation. Duplicate screening and data extraction were performed to formulate evidence tables and meta-analysis as appropriate.

RESULTS

As only one RCT addressed the efficacy of subgingival instrumentation compared with supragingival cleaning alone (PICOS-1), baseline and final measures from 9 studies were considered. The weighted pocket depth (PD) reduction was 1.4 mm (95%CI: 1.0 1.7) at 6/8 months, and the proportion of pocket closure was estimated at 74% (95%CI: 64-85). Six RCTs compared hand and sonic/ultrasonic instruments for subgingival instrumentation (PICOS-2). No significant differences were observed between groups by follow-up time point or category of initial PD. Thirteen RCTs evaluated quadrant-wise versus full-mouth approaches (PICOS-3). No significant differences were observed between groups irrespective of time-points or initial PD. Five studies reported patient-reported outcomes, reporting no differences between groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Nonsurgical periodontal therapy by mechanical subgingival instrumentation is an efficacious means to achieve infection control in periodontitis patients irrespective of the type of instrument or mode of delivery. Prospero ID: CRD42019124887.

Evidence that full-mouth scaling superior to conventional treatment approaches is unclear

DATA SOURCES

The Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medline, Embase, CINHAL, the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register and the WHO Clinical Trials Registry Platform.

STUDY SELECTION

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least three months follow-up comparing full-mouth scaling and root planing within 24 hours with adjunctive use of an antiseptic such as chlorhexidine (FMD) or without the use of antiseptic (FMS), compared to conventional quadrant scaling and root planing (control).

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Methodological guidelines of the Cochrane Collaboration were followed. Two review authors selected the papers and determined eligibility based on the titles and abstracts, and any disagreements were resolved by discussion. Four review authors carried out the data extraction. The characteristics of studies excluded at the full-text stage are described in detail. The Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to assess bias in the included studies. Tooth loss and changes in pocket probing depths were the primary outcome measures while attachment level and bleeding on probing were the secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

Twelve trials recruiting 389 participants were included. No studies assessed the primary outcome tooth loss. Ten trials compared FMS and control and there was no evidence for benefit of FMS in any of the outcome measures. Six trials were included in the meta-analysis comparing FMD and control, which did not reveal a benefit for FMD over conventional scaling and root planing. Three trials compared FMS and FMD and did not demonstrate a benefit of one over the other. The quality of evidence was assessed as 'low' due to study design limitations and the small number of trials and participants.

CONCLUSIONS

From the 12 included trials there is no clear evidence that FMS or FMD provide additional benefit compared to conventional scaling and root planing. In practice, the decision to select one approach to non-surgical periodontal therapy over another should include patient preference and the convenience of the treatment schedule.

Full-mouth treatment modalities (within 24 hours) for chronic periodontitis in adults

BACKGROUND

Periodontitis is chronic inflammation that causes damage to the soft tissues and bones supporting the teeth. Mild to moderate periodontitis affects up to 50% of adults. Conventional treatment is quadrant scaling and root planing. In an attempt to enhance treatment outcomes, alternative protocols for anti-infective periodontal therapy have been introduced: full-mouth scaling (FMS) and full-mouth disinfection (FMD), which is scaling plus use of an antiseptic. This review updates our previous review of full-mouth treatment modalities, which was published in 2008.

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the clinical effects of 1) full-mouth scaling (over 24 hours) or 2) full-mouth disinfection (over 24 hours) for the treatment of chronic periodontitis compared to conventional quadrant scaling and root planing (over a series of visits at least one week apart). A secondary objective was to evaluate whether there was a difference in clinical effect between full-mouth disinfection and full-mouth scaling.

SEARCH METHODS

The following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 26 March 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 2), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 26 March 2015), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 26 March 2015) and CINAHL via EBSCO (1937 to 26 March 2015). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing studies. There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication in the searches of the electronic databases. We scanned reference lists from relevant articles and contacted the authors of eligible studies to identify trials and obtain additional information.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least three months of follow-up that evaluated full-mouth scaling and root planing within 24 hours with adjunctive use of an antiseptic such as chlorhexidine (FMD) or without the use of antiseptic (FMS), compared to conventional quadrant scaling and root planing (control). Participants had a clinical diagnosis of chronic periodontitis according to the International Classification of Periodontal Diseases. We excluded studies of people with aggressive periodontitis, systemic disorders or who were taking antibiotics.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Several review authors independently conducted data extraction and risk of bias assessment (which focused on method of randomisation, allocation concealment, blinding of examiners and completeness of follow-up). Our primary outcome was tooth loss and secondary outcomes were change in probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BOP) and probing attachment (i.e. clinical attachment level; CAL), and adverse events. We followed the methodological guidelines of The Cochrane Collaboration.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 12 trials, which recruited 389 participants. No studies assessed the primary outcome tooth loss.Ten trials compared FMS and control; three of these were assessed as being at high risk of bias, three as unclear risk and four as low risk. There was no evidence for a benefit for FMS over the control for change in probing pocket depth (PPD), gain in probing attachment (i.e. clinical attachment level; CAL) or bleeding on probing (BOP). The difference in changes between FMS and control for whole mouth PPD at three to four months was 0.01 mm higher (95% CI -0.17 to 0.19, three trials, 82 participants). There was no evidence of heterogeneity. The difference in changes for CAL was 0.02 mm lower (95% CI -0.26 to 0.22, three trials, 82 participants), and the difference in change in BOP was 2.86 per cent of sites lower (95% CI -7.65 to 1.93, four trials, 120 participants).We included six trials in the meta-analyses comparing FMD and control, with two trials assessed as being at high risk of bias, one as low and three as unclear. The analyses did not indicate a benefit for FMD over the control for PPD, CAL or BOP. The difference in changes for whole-mouth PPD between FMD and control at three to four months was 0.13 mm higher (95% CI -0.09 to 0.34, two trials, 44 participants). There was no evidence of heterogeneity. The difference in changes for CAL was 0.04mm higher (95% CI -0.25 to 0.33, two trials, 44 participants) and the difference in change in BOP being 12.59 higher for FMD (95% CI -8.58 to 33.77, three trials, 68 participants).Three trials were included in the analyses comparing FMS and FMD. The mean difference in PPD change at three to four months was 0.11 mm lower (-0.34 to 0.12, two trials, 45 participants) indicating no evidence of a difference between the two interventions. There was a difference in the gain in CAL at three to four months (-0.25 mm, 95% CI -0.42 to -0.07, two trials, 45 participants), favouring FMD but this was not found at six to eight months. There was no evidence for a difference between FMS and FMD for BOP (-1.59, 95% CI -9.97 to 6.80, two trials, 45 participants).Analyses were conducted for different teeth types (single- or multi-rooted) and for teeth with different levels of probing depth at baseline, for PPD, CAL and BOP. There was insufficient evidence of a benefit for either FMS or FMD.Harms and adverse events were reported in eight studies. The most important harm identified was an increased body temperature after FMS or FMD treatments.We assessed the quality of the evidence for each comparison and outcome as 'low' because of design limitations leading to risk of bias and because of the small number of trials and participants, which led to imprecision in the effect estimates.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

The inclusion of five additional RCTs in this updated review comparing the clinical effects of conventional mechanical treatment with FMS and FMD approaches for the treatment of chronic periodontitis has not changed the conclusions of the original review. From the twelve included trials there is no clear evidence that FMS or FMD provide additional benefit compared to conventional scaling and root planing. In practice, the decision to select one approach to non-surgical periodontal therapy over another should include patient preference and the convenience of the treatment schedule.