Clinical Evaluation of Partial- and Full-Mouth Scaling in the Treatment of Chronic Periodontitis

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specialist searched five databases up to 17 June 2021 and used additional search methods to identify published, unpublished and ongoing studies.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

Associations between the phenotype and genotype of MnSOD and catalase in periodontal disease

BACKGROUND

Periodontal disease is an inflammatory disease in which pathogenic infections trigger a series of inflammatory responses and redox regulation. The hypothesis of this study was that a host's redox regulation, as modified by genetic polymorphisms, may affect periodontal disease activities (including the plaque index (PlI), bleeding on probing (BOP), and pocket depth (PD)) during periodontal therapy.

METHODS

In total, 175 patients diagnosed with periodontitis were recruited from the Department of Periodontology, Taipei Medical University Hospital. Both saliva samples and clinical measurements (PlI, BOP, and PD) were taken at the baseline and at 1 month after completing treatment. Salivary manganese superoxide dismutase (MnSOD) and catalase, and corresponding genetic polymorphisms (MnSOD, T47C, rs4880 and Catalase, C-262 T, rs1001179) were determined. The extent of change (Δ) of MnSOD or catalase was calculated by subtracting the concentration after completing treatment from that at the baseline.

RESULTS

Subjects who carried the Catalase CC genotype had significantly higher salivary MnSOD or catalase levels. The MnSOD genotype had a significant effect on the percentage of PDs of 4~9 mm (p = 0.02), and salivary ΔMnSOD had a significant effect on the PlI (p = 0.03). The Catalase genotype had a significant effect on the PlI (p = 0.01~0.04), but the effect was not found for the mean PlI or PD. There was a significant interaction between the MnSOD genotype and salivary ΔMnSOD on PDs of 4~9 mm. After adjusting for gender, years of schooling, smoking status, and alcohol consumption, subjects with ΔMnSOD of < 0 μg/ml or Δcatalase of < 0 μg/ml had significantly higher 5.58- or 5.17-fold responses to scaling and root planing treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

The MnSOD T47C genotype interferes with the phenotype of salivary antioxidant level, alters MnSOD levels, and influences the PD recovery. MnSOD and catalase gene polymorphism associated with phenotype expression and susceptibility in periodontal root planing treatment responses.

Routine scale and polish for periodontal health in adults

BACKGROUND

Many dentists or hygienists provide scaling and polishing for patients at regular intervals, even for those at low risk of developing periodontal disease. There is debate over the clinical and cost effectiveness of 'routine scaling and polishing' and the optimal frequency at which it should be provided for healthy adults.A 'routine scale and polish' treatment is defined as scaling or polishing, or both, of the crown and root surfaces of teeth to remove local irritational factors (plaque, calculus, debris and staining), which does not involve periodontal surgery or any form of adjunctive periodontal therapy such as the use of chemotherapeutic agents or root planing. Routine scale and polish treatments are typically provided in general dental practice settings. The technique may also be referred to as prophylaxis, professional mechanical plaque removal or periodontal instrumentation.This review updates a version published in 2013.

OBJECTIVES

1. To determine the beneficial and harmful effects of routine scaling and polishing for periodontal health.2. To determine the beneficial and harmful effects of routine scaling and polishing at different recall intervals for periodontal health.3. To determine the beneficial and harmful effects of routine scaling and polishing for periodontal health when the treatment is provided by dentists compared with dental care professionals (dental therapists or dental hygienists).

SEARCH METHODS

Cochrane Oral Health's Information Specialist searched the following databases: Cochrane Oral Health's Trials Register (to 10 January 2018), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library, 2017, Issue 12), MEDLINE Ovid (1946 to 10 January 2018), and Embase Ovid (1980 to 10 January 2018). The US National Institutes of Health Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform were searched for ongoing trials. No restrictions were placed on the language or date of publication when searching the electronic databases.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of routine scale and polish treatments, with or without oral hygiene instruction, in healthy dentate adults without severe periodontitis. We excluded split-mouth trials.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors screened the results of the searches against inclusion criteria, extracted data and assessed risk of bias independently and in duplicate. We calculated mean differences (MDs) (or standardised mean differences (SMDs) when different scales were reported) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous data. We calculated risk ratios (RR) and 95% CIs for dichotomous data. We used a fixed-effect model for meta-analyses. We contacted study authors when necessary to obtain missing information. We rated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach.

MAIN RESULTS

We included two studies with 1711 participants in the analyses. Both studies were conducted in UK general dental practices and involved adults without severe periodontitis who were regular attenders at dental appointments. One study measured outcomes at 24 months and the other at 36 months. Neither study measured adverse effects, changes in attachment level, tooth loss or halitosis.Comparison 1: routine scaling and polishing versus no scheduled scaling and polishingTwo studies compared planned, regular interval (six- and 12-monthly) scale and polish treatments versus no scheduled treatment. We found little or no difference between groups over a two- to three-year period for gingivitis, probing depths, oral health-related quality of life (all high-certainty evidence) and plaque (low-certainty evidence). The SMD for gingivitis when comparing six-monthly scale and polish treatment versus no scheduled treatment was -0.01 (95% CI -0.13 to 0.11; two trials, 1087 participants), and for 12-monthly scale and polish versus no scheduled treatment was -0.04 (95% CI -0.16 to 0.08; two trials, 1091 participants).Regular planned scale and polish treatments produced a small reduction in calculus levels over two to three years when compared with no scheduled scale and polish treatments (high-certainty evidence). The SMD for six-monthly scale and polish versus no scheduled treatment was -0.32 (95% CI -0.44 to -0.20; two trials, 1088 participants) and for 12-monthly scale and polish versus no scheduled treatment was -0.19 (95% CI -0.31 to -0.07; two trials, 1088 participants). The clinical importance of these small reductions is unclear.Participants' self-reported levels of oral cleanliness were higher when receiving six- and 12-monthly scale and polish treatments compared to no scheduled treatment, but the certainty of the evidence is low.Comparison 2: routine scaling and polishing at different recall intervalsTwo studies compared routine six-monthly scale and polish treatments versus 12-monthly treatments. We found little or no difference between groups over two to three years for the outcomes of gingivitis, probing depths, oral health-related quality of life (all high-certainty evidence) and plaque (low-certainty evidence). The SMD for gingivitis was 0.03 (95% CI -0.09 to 0.15; two trials, 1090 participants; I² = 0%). Six- monthly scale and polish treatments produced a small reduction in calculus levels over a two- to three-year period when compared with 12-monthly treatments (SMD -0.13 (95% CI -0.25 to -0.01; 2 trials, 1086 participants; high-certainty evidence). The clinical importance of this small reduction is unclear.The comparative effects of six- and 12-monthly scale and polish treatments on patients' self-reported levels of oral cleanliness were uncertain (very low-certainty evidence).Comparison 3: routine scaling and polishing provided by dentists compared with dental care professionals (dental therapists or hygienists)No studies evaluated this comparison.The review findings in relation to costs were uncertain (very low-certainty evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

For adults without severe periodontitis who regularly access routine dental care, routine scale and polish treatment makes little or no difference to gingivitis, probing depths and oral health-related quality of life over two to three years follow-up when compared with no scheduled scale and polish treatments (high-certainty evidence). There may also be little or no difference in plaque levels over two years (low-certainty evidence). Routine scaling and polishing reduces calculus levels compared with no routine scaling and polishing, with six-monthly treatments reducing calculus more than 12-monthly treatments over two to three years follow-up (high-certainty evidence), although the clinical importance of these small reductions is uncertain. Available evidence on the costs of the treatments is uncertain. The studies did not assess adverse effects.

Cigarette Smoking Aggravates the Activity of Periodontal Disease by Disrupting Redox Homeostasis- An Observational Study

The aim of this study was to evaluate the associations between cigarette use and five salivary oxidative stress biomarkers, copper-zinc superoxide dismutase (Cu/Zn SOD), manganese superoxide dismutase (MnSOD), catalase, thioredoxin-1 (TRX1), and peroxiredoxin-2 (PRX2), to assess the effectiveness of non-surgical periodontal therapy.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This is an observational study,167 patients diagnosed with periodontitis were recruited. Both saliva samples and clinical measurements (plaque index (PI), bleeding on probing (BOP), and pocket depth (PD)) were taken at baseline and after completing non-surgical periodontal therapy. The Levels of salivary biomarkers were determined using a MILLIPLEX® MAP Human Oxidative Stress Magnetic Bead Panel kit. The overall reductions in PI and BOP were 31.56% and 42.16%, respectively. BOP reduction after treatment in female or male non-smokers was significantly higher than in male former smokers (p < 0.05). After completing non-surgical periodontal therapy, Cu/ZnSOD, MnSOD, catalase, and Prx2 significantly decreased. There was a significant interaction between smoking status and ΔCu/ZnSOD on PI and a significant interaction between smoking status and ΔCatalase on BOP.

CONCLUSIONS

Cigarette smoking interferes with redox homeostasis in the body, alters antioxidants levels, and influences the periodontal disease activity.

Use of the Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT) to assess full-mouth treatments of chronic periodontitis

Previous studies have not resolved whether scaling and root planing with a full-mouth (with or without antiseptics) or quadrant approach is better for treatment of chronic periodontitis. We identified relevant studies and used Strength of Recommendation Taxonomy (SORT) criteria to critically interpret the results of all relevant studies. A literature search was performed using the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane databases up to July 2015. Selected studies were stratified according to their quality, quantity, and consistency. In total, 377 studies were identified, and 36 articles selected for retrieval were stratified according SORT criteria, as follows: no level 1 studies, 15 level 2 studies, and 21 level 3 studies (which were excluded from subsequent analysis). Among the selected level 2 studies, including seven randomized clinical trials and three systematic reviews, 67% showed no significant difference between scaling and root planing with a full-mouth or quadrant approach. In conclusion, on the basis of the best available data, the strength of evidence is grade B (consistent, low-quality evidence) for full-mouth (with or without antiseptics) and quadrant scaling and root planing for treatment of chronic periodontitis.

Comparison of full-mouth disinfection and quadrant-wise scaling in the treatment of adult chronic periodontitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Scaling and root planing are widely considered as effective methods for treating chronic periodontitis. A meta-analysis published in 2008 showed no statistically significant differences between full-mouth disinfection (FMD) or full-mouth scaling and root planing (FMS) and quadrant scaling and root planing (Q-SRP). The FMD approach only resulted in modest additional improvements in several indices. Whether differences exist between these two approaches requires further validation. Accordingly, a study was conducted to further validate whether FMD with antiseptics or FMS without the use of antiseptics within 24 h provides greater clinical improvement than Q-SRP in patients with chronic periodontitis. Medline (via OVID), EMBASE (via OVID), PubMed and CENTRAL databases were searched up to 27 January 2015. Randomized controlled trials comparing FMD or FMS with Q-SRP after at least 3 mo were included. Meta-analysis was performed to obtain the weighted mean difference (WMD), together with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals. Thirteen articles were included in the meta-analysis. The WMD of probing pocket depth reduction was 0.25 mm (p < 0.05) for FMD vs. Q-SRP in single-rooted teeth with moderate pockets, and clinical attachment level gain in single- and multirooted teeth with moderate pockets was 0.33 mm (p < 0.05) for FMD vs. Q-SRP. Except for those, no statistically significant differences were found in the other subanalyses of FMD vs. Q-SRP, FMS vs. Q-SRP and FMD vs. FMS. Therefore, the meta-analysis results showed that FMD was better than Q-SRP for achieving probing pocket depth reduction and clinical attachment level gain in moderate pockets. Additionally, regardless of the treatment, no serious complications were observed. FMD, FMS and Q-SRP are all effective for the treatment of adult chronic periodontitis, and they do not lead to any obvious discomfort among patients. Moreover, FMD had modest additional clinical benefits over Q-SRP, so we prefer to recommend FMD as the first choice for the treatment of adult chronic periodontitis.

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.

Routine scale and polish for periodontal health in adults

BACKGROUND

Many dentists or hygienists provide scaling and polishing for patients at regular intervals, even if those patients are considered to be at low risk of developing periodontal disease. There is debate over the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of 'routine scaling and polishing' and the 'optimal' frequency at which it should be provided for healthy adults.A 'routine scale and polish' treatment is defined as scaling or polishing or both of the crown and root surfaces of teeth to remove local irritational factors (plaque, calculus, debris and staining), that does not involve periodontal surgery or any form of adjunctive periodontal therapy such as the use of chemotherapeutic agents or root planing.

OBJECTIVES

The objectives were: 1) to determine the beneficial and harmful effects of routine scaling and polishing for periodontal health; 2) to determine the beneficial and harmful effects of providing routine scaling and polishing at different time intervals on periodontal health; 3) to compare the effects of routine scaling and polishing with or without oral hygiene instruction (OHI) on periodontal health; and 4) to compare the effects of routine scaling and polishing provided by a dentist or dental care professional (dental therapist or dental hygienist) on periodontal health.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases: the Cochrane Oral Health Group's Trials Register (to 15 July 2013), CENTRAL (The Cochrane Library 2013, Issue 6), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 15 July 2013) and EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 15 July 2013). We searched the metaRegister of Controlled Trials and the US National Institutes of Health Clinical Trials Register (clinicaltrials.gov) for ongoing and completed studies to July 2013. There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials of routine scale and polish treatments (excluding split-mouth trials) with and without OHI in healthy dentate adults, without severe periodontitis.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors screened the results of the searches against inclusion criteria, extracted data and assessed risk of bias independently and in duplicate. We calculated mean differences (MDs) (standardised mean differences (SMDs) when different scales were reported) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for continuous data and, where results were meta-analysed, we used a fixed-effect model as there were fewer than four studies. Study authors were contacted where possible and where deemed necessary for missing information.

MAIN RESULTS

Three studies were included in this review with 836 participants included in the analyses. All three studies are assessed as at unclear risk of bias. The numerical results are only presented here for the primary outcome gingivitis. There were no useable data presented in the studies for the outcomes of attachment change and tooth loss. No studies reported any adverse effects.- Objective 1: Scale and polish versus no scale and polish Only one trial provided data for the comparison between scale and polish versus no scale and polish. This study was conducted in general practice and compared both six-monthly and 12-monthly scale and polish treatments with no treatment. This study showed no evidence to claim or refute benefit for scale and polish treatments for the outcomes of gingivitis, calculus and plaque. The MD for six-monthly scale and polish, for the percentage of index teeth with bleeding at 24 months was -2% (95% CI -10% to 6%; P value = 0.65), with 40% of the sites in the control group with bleeding. The MD for 12-monthly scale and polish was -1% (95% CI -9% to 7%; P value = 0.82). The body of evidence was assessed as of low quality.- Objective 2: Scale and polish at different time intervals Two studies, both at unclear risk of bias, compared routine scale and polish provided at different time intervals. When comparing six with 12 months there was insufficient evidence to determine a difference for gingivitis at 24 months SMD -0.08 (95% CI -0.27 to 0.10). There were some statistically significant differences in favour of scaling and polishing provided at more frequent intervals, in particular between three and 12 months for the outcome of gingivitis at 24 months, with OHI, MD -0.14 (95% CI -0.23 to -0.05; P value = 0.003) and without OHI MD -0.21 (95% CI -0.30 to -0.12; P value < 0.001) (mean per patient measured on 0-3 scale), based on one study. There was some evidence of a reduction in calculus. This body of evidence was assessed as of low quality.- Objective 3: Scale and polish with and without OHIOne study provided data for the comparison of scale and polish treatment with and without OHI. There was a reduction in gingivitis for the 12-month scale and polish treatment when assessed at 24 months MD -0.14 (95% CI -0.22 to -0.06) in favour of including OHI. There were also significant reductions in plaque for both three and 12-month scale and polish treatments when OHI was included. The body of evidence was once again assessed as of low quality.- Objective 4: Scale and polish provided by a dentist compared with a dental care professionalNo studies were found which compared the effects of routine scaling and polishing provided by a dentist or dental care professional (dental therapist or dental hygienist) on periodontal health.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is insufficient evidence to determine the effects of routine scale and polish treatments. High quality trials conducted in general dental practice settings with sufficiently long follow-up periods (five years or more) are required to address the objectives of this review.

Clinical and microbiologic results 12 months after scaling and root planing with different irrigation solutions in patients with moderate chronic periodontitis: a pilot randomized trial

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study is to determine in a randomized trial the impact on treatment outcome after 12 months of different subgingival irrigation solutions during scaling and root planing (SRP).

METHODS

Fifty-one adult volunteers with generalized chronic periodontitis were treated by full-mouth SRP using 0.9% sodium chloride, 0.12% chlorhexidine digluconate, or 7.5% povidone-iodine for subgingival irrigation during SRP. Before SRP and after 3 and 12 months, probing depth (PD), clinical attachment level (CAL), and bleeding on probing (BOP) were recorded. Subgingival plaque samples were analyzed for Aggregatibacter actinomycetemcomitans, Porphyromonas gingivalis, Tannerella forsythia, and Treponema denticola.

RESULTS

PD, CAL, and BOP were significantly improved in all groups after 12 months (P <0.001 to P = 0.044). No significant differences were seen among the groups for all sites and sites with 4 to 6 mm PD at baseline. The povidone-iodine group had the highest clinical improvements. The counts of A. actinomycetemcomitans and P. gingivalis were significantly reduced after 12 months (P = 0.045 and P = 0.002) using povidone-iodine. Significant differences between the groups were seen after 3 months for A. actinomycetemcomitans and P. gingivalis, and after 12 months for T. forsythia.

CONCLUSIONS

No differences were seen among the groups in the clinical results after 12 months. Regarding the microbiologic results, a slight benefit seemed to derive from the use of povidone-iodine.

Prospective clinical study evaluating the long-time adjunctive use of chlorhexidine after one-stage full-mouth SRP

OBJECTIVES

Scaling and root planing are the causal procedure in the treatment of periodontitis. Many attempts have been made to improve the outcome. The aim of this study was to verify the influence of the extended use of chlorhexidine after one-stage full-mouth (FM) SRP in patients with chronic periodontitis on the clinical outcome after 3 months.

METHODS

Eighty-one patients with pockets > or =5 mm were treated by FM. All patients rinsed additionally with 0.2% chlorhexidine (CHX) twice daily over 3 months. Plaque index, bleeding on probing, probing depth (PD) and clinical attachment level (CAL) were recorded at baseline and after 1 and 3 months.

RESULTS

In the test group, all variables were significantly improved after 1 and 3 months. Mean reduction of PD and CAL gain was 2.25 +/- 1.08 and 1.67 +/- 1.08 after 1 and 2.99 +/- 1.11 and 2.33 +/- 1.31 after 3 months respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Over 3 months of extended use of CHX mouth rinse after SRP showed slightly but statistically significant better results.

Assessment of aprotinin influence on periodontal clinical status and matrix metalloproteinases 1, 2 and their tissue inhibitors saliva concentrations in patients with chronic periodontitis

PURPOSE

Assessment of the effect of treatment with aprotinin-containing drug on the clinical status of the periodontal tissue and on the concentrations of metalloproteinases released in the course of periodontitis (MMP-1, MMP-2) as well as their tissue inhibitors (TIMP-1 and TIMP-2) in the saliva of patients with chronic periodontitis (CP).

MATERIAL/METHODS

The study involved 25 subjects with CP (39-68 years), including 16 women and 9 men. The patients were prescribed aprotinin preparation to be taken for 2 weeks. The control group (C) involved 14 healthy subjects (41-65 years), including 10 women and 4 men. Two periodontal indices were assessed: the approximal plaque index (API) and bleeding on probing index (BOP). Periodontal pocket depth and clinical attachment level were also evaluated. The concentrations of MMP-1 and MMP-2 as well as TIMP-1 and TIMP-2 were determined by the ELISA method.

RESULTS

The mean salivary MMP-1 concentration in patients with CP was significantly higher before and after treatment, as compared to healthy subjects. The mean salivary MMP-2 concentration in CP patients at baseline was also higher as compared to the C group and increased after treatment. The mean salivary TIMP-1 and TIMP-2 concentration in CP patients was higher as compared to C group and increased after treatment.

CONCLUSIONS

Since the mean MMPs levels were found to be growing it can be assumed that aprotinin has no significant effect on the regulation of MMPs in the saliva of CP patients. It thus seems that aprotinin application after scaling has no additional therapeutic effect.