Mechanical debridement combined with amoxicillin and metronidazole compared with mechanical debridement alone for the treatment of chronic periodontitis: An overview of systematic reviews.

IF 2.7 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Dental and Medical Problems Pub Date : 2024-05-01 DOI:10.17219/dmp/158925
Daniela Zúñiga-Loor, Juan Marcos Parise-Vasco, Camila Montesinos-Guevara
{"title":"Mechanical debridement combined with amoxicillin and metronidazole compared with mechanical debridement alone for the treatment of chronic periodontitis: An overview of systematic reviews.","authors":"Daniela Zúñiga-Loor, Juan Marcos Parise-Vasco, Camila Montesinos-Guevara","doi":"10.17219/dmp/158925","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Periodontal mechanical debridement is the most common therapy for the treatment of periodontitis. However, depending on the severity of the disease, mechanical debridement has been recommended in combination with systemic antibiotics. In this study, we performed an overview of systematic reviews using the Friendly Summaries of Body of Evidence using Epistemonikos (FRISBEE) methodology on the effectiveness and safety of mechanical debridement combined with amoxicillin and metronidazole compared to mechanical debridement alone for the treatment of chronic periodontitis. We conducted a systematic search of the Epistemonikos database, extracted data from 10 systematic reviews and re-analyzed data from 23 primary studies to generate a summary of findings (SoF) table. We used RevMan 5.3 and GRADEpro for data analysis and data presentation. The following outcomes were analyzed: probing depth (mean difference (MD): 0.07 mm); clinical attachment level (MD: 0.04 mm); bleeding on probing (MD: 5.06%); and suppuration (MD: 0.31%). There was no evidence of a clinically relevant benefit of periodontal mechanical debridement therapy combined with amoxicillin and metronidazole compared to periodontal mechanical debridement therapy alone for the treatment of chronic periodontitis in the studied periodontal outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":11191,"journal":{"name":"Dental and Medical Problems","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Dental and Medical Problems","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17219/dmp/158925","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Periodontal mechanical debridement is the most common therapy for the treatment of periodontitis. However, depending on the severity of the disease, mechanical debridement has been recommended in combination with systemic antibiotics. In this study, we performed an overview of systematic reviews using the Friendly Summaries of Body of Evidence using Epistemonikos (FRISBEE) methodology on the effectiveness and safety of mechanical debridement combined with amoxicillin and metronidazole compared to mechanical debridement alone for the treatment of chronic periodontitis. We conducted a systematic search of the Epistemonikos database, extracted data from 10 systematic reviews and re-analyzed data from 23 primary studies to generate a summary of findings (SoF) table. We used RevMan 5.3 and GRADEpro for data analysis and data presentation. The following outcomes were analyzed: probing depth (mean difference (MD): 0.07 mm); clinical attachment level (MD: 0.04 mm); bleeding on probing (MD: 5.06%); and suppuration (MD: 0.31%). There was no evidence of a clinically relevant benefit of periodontal mechanical debridement therapy combined with amoxicillin and metronidazole compared to periodontal mechanical debridement therapy alone for the treatment of chronic periodontitis in the studied periodontal outcomes.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
机械清创联合阿莫西林和甲硝唑与单纯机械清创治疗慢性牙周炎的比较:系统回顾综述。
牙周机械清创是治疗牙周炎最常见的疗法。然而,根据疾病的严重程度,机械清创被推荐与全身抗生素联合使用。在本研究中,我们采用Epistemonikos(FRISBEE)证据友好摘要方法,对机械清创联合阿莫西林和甲硝唑与单纯机械清创治疗慢性牙周炎的有效性和安全性进行了系统综述。我们对 Epistemonikos 数据库进行了系统检索,从 10 篇系统综述中提取了数据,并重新分析了 23 项主要研究的数据,生成了研究结果摘要 (SoF) 表。我们使用 RevMan 5.3 和 GRADEpro 进行数据分析和数据展示。我们对以下结果进行了分析:探诊深度(平均差(MD):0.07 毫米);临床附着水平(MD:0.04 毫米);探诊出血(MD:5.06%);化脓(MD:0.31%)。在所研究的牙周结果中,没有证据表明牙周机械清创疗法联合阿莫西林和甲硝唑治疗慢性牙周炎比单独使用牙周机械清创疗法治疗慢性牙周炎具有临床相关性益处。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.00
自引率
3.80%
发文量
58
审稿时长
53 weeks
期刊最新文献
Most common congenital syndromes with facial asymmetry: A narrative review. Self-assessment skills of undergraduate students in operative dentistry: Preclinical performance and gender. Optical properties of advanced lithium disilicate. Studies on the content of toxic metals in teeth: A narrative review of literature. Kinesio Taping as an alternative therapy for limited mandibular mobility with pain in female patients with temporomandibular disorders: A randomized controlled trial.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1