Do Intrabony Defects Have a Worse Clinical Response to Step 2 of Periodontal Therapy and Repeated Subgingival Instrumentation Compared with Suprabony Defects? A Systematic Review.
L Marini, A Cuozzo, G Mainas, G Antonoglou, A Pilloni, L Nibali
{"title":"Do Intrabony Defects Have a Worse Clinical Response to Step 2 of Periodontal Therapy and Repeated Subgingival Instrumentation Compared with Suprabony Defects? A Systematic Review.","authors":"L Marini, A Cuozzo, G Mainas, G Antonoglou, A Pilloni, L Nibali","doi":"10.11607/prd.7235","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To assess the differential clinical response to step 2 of periodontal therapy and repeated subgingival instrumentation between teeth with suprabony and intrabony defects.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Electronic and manual search were performed to identify studies reporting the differential clinical outcomes of non-surgical periodontal therapy (NSPT) in presence or absence of intrabony defects. The Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 and the Newcastle Ottawa scale were used to assess the risk of bias.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Two thousand three hundred forty-eight articles were initially screened, and a total of 5 articles were finally included. Regarding the primary outcome measure, two studies reported PPD reduction values at 6 months after step 2 of periodontal therapy, showing an opposite response of intrabony defects compared to suprabony defects (3.2 mm ± 1.9 versus 2.2 mm ± 1.7 and 0.48 mm ± 0.42 versus 0.72 mm ± 0.36, respectively), while one study reported no differences at 3 months. One study showed a negative association between the presence of intrabony defect and PPD reduction at 9 months after non-surgical step 3 (p < 0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Due to the limited number of studies and heterogeneity of the data, conflicting evidence emerged for the differential response to NSPT of intrabony and suprabony defects.</p>","PeriodicalId":94231,"journal":{"name":"The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry","volume":"0 0","pages":"1-23"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The International journal of periodontics & restorative dentistry","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.11607/prd.7235","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Aim: To assess the differential clinical response to step 2 of periodontal therapy and repeated subgingival instrumentation between teeth with suprabony and intrabony defects.
Methods: Electronic and manual search were performed to identify studies reporting the differential clinical outcomes of non-surgical periodontal therapy (NSPT) in presence or absence of intrabony defects. The Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 and the Newcastle Ottawa scale were used to assess the risk of bias.
Results: Two thousand three hundred forty-eight articles were initially screened, and a total of 5 articles were finally included. Regarding the primary outcome measure, two studies reported PPD reduction values at 6 months after step 2 of periodontal therapy, showing an opposite response of intrabony defects compared to suprabony defects (3.2 mm ± 1.9 versus 2.2 mm ± 1.7 and 0.48 mm ± 0.42 versus 0.72 mm ± 0.36, respectively), while one study reported no differences at 3 months. One study showed a negative association between the presence of intrabony defect and PPD reduction at 9 months after non-surgical step 3 (p < 0.05).
Conclusion: Due to the limited number of studies and heterogeneity of the data, conflicting evidence emerged for the differential response to NSPT of intrabony and suprabony defects.