Endoscopic Re‐Instrumentation of Intrabony Defect–Associated Deep Residual Periodontal Pockets Is Non‐Inferior to Papilla Preservation Flap Surgery: A Randomized Trial
King‐Lun Dominic Ho, Ka‐Leong Ryan Ho, George Pelekos, Wai‐Keung Leung, Maurizio S. Tonetti
{"title":"Endoscopic Re‐Instrumentation of Intrabony Defect–Associated Deep Residual Periodontal Pockets Is Non‐Inferior to Papilla Preservation Flap Surgery: A Randomized Trial","authors":"King‐Lun Dominic Ho, Ka‐Leong Ryan Ho, George Pelekos, Wai‐Keung Leung, Maurizio S. Tonetti","doi":"10.1111/jcpe.14075","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background and AimClinical practice guidelines suggest access flap surgery for managing deep residual pockets after steps 1 and 2 of periodontal therapy. Papilla‐preservation flap surgery (PPFS) is the least invasive approach to access and instrument biofilm‐contaminated root surfaces. Endoscopic‐assisted subgingival debridement (EASD) may enhance the outcomes of repeated instrumentation and provide a minimally invasive non‐surgical alternative.MethodsThis was a single‐blind, controlled, randomized, parallel‐group, non‐inferiority 12‐month trial comparing EASD with PPFS. Male and female adults with generalized stage III periodontitis and persistent periodontal pockets associated with an intrabony defect after steps 1 and 2 of periodontal therapy were recruited at Prince Philip Dental Hospital. Inter‐group differences in clinical attachment level (CAL) changes at 12 months were the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included pocket resolution (no pocket > 5 mm and no pocket > 4 with bleeding on probing), radiographic bone changes, treatment time, early wound healing and quality‐of‐life measurements.ResultsSixty‐two subjects (30 EASD and 32 PPFS) were included in the intention‐to‐treat analysis. CAL gains were 2.0 ± 1.0 and 1.8 ± 1.0 mm for test and controls, respectively. The 95% CI of the inter‐group difference was −0.3 to 0.8 mm and within the stipulated 1‐mm non‐inferiority margin. No inter‐group differences were observed (i) in pocket resolution, which was achieved in more than 87% of cases for all groups/time points, and (ii) in radiographic bone healing. The treatment time was significantly shorter for EASD than for PPFS. Better early wound healing index scores were observed for EASD. No inter‐group differences in pain, quality of life or safety were detected.ConclusionsEASD was not inferior to PPFS for managing residual pockets associated with intrabony defects. The observed outcome profile supports additional developments and studies to validate EASD as an alternative to surgery for isolated persistent pockets (ChiCTR‐INR‐16008407).","PeriodicalId":15380,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Periodontology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Periodontology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.14075","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","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
Background and AimClinical practice guidelines suggest access flap surgery for managing deep residual pockets after steps 1 and 2 of periodontal therapy. Papilla‐preservation flap surgery (PPFS) is the least invasive approach to access and instrument biofilm‐contaminated root surfaces. Endoscopic‐assisted subgingival debridement (EASD) may enhance the outcomes of repeated instrumentation and provide a minimally invasive non‐surgical alternative.MethodsThis was a single‐blind, controlled, randomized, parallel‐group, non‐inferiority 12‐month trial comparing EASD with PPFS. Male and female adults with generalized stage III periodontitis and persistent periodontal pockets associated with an intrabony defect after steps 1 and 2 of periodontal therapy were recruited at Prince Philip Dental Hospital. Inter‐group differences in clinical attachment level (CAL) changes at 12 months were the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included pocket resolution (no pocket > 5 mm and no pocket > 4 with bleeding on probing), radiographic bone changes, treatment time, early wound healing and quality‐of‐life measurements.ResultsSixty‐two subjects (30 EASD and 32 PPFS) were included in the intention‐to‐treat analysis. CAL gains were 2.0 ± 1.0 and 1.8 ± 1.0 mm for test and controls, respectively. The 95% CI of the inter‐group difference was −0.3 to 0.8 mm and within the stipulated 1‐mm non‐inferiority margin. No inter‐group differences were observed (i) in pocket resolution, which was achieved in more than 87% of cases for all groups/time points, and (ii) in radiographic bone healing. The treatment time was significantly shorter for EASD than for PPFS. Better early wound healing index scores were observed for EASD. No inter‐group differences in pain, quality of life or safety were detected.ConclusionsEASD was not inferior to PPFS for managing residual pockets associated with intrabony defects. The observed outcome profile supports additional developments and studies to validate EASD as an alternative to surgery for isolated persistent pockets (ChiCTR‐INR‐16008407).
期刊介绍:
Journal of Clinical Periodontology was founded by the British, Dutch, French, German, Scandinavian, and Swiss Societies of Periodontology.
The aim of the Journal of Clinical Periodontology is to provide the platform for exchange of scientific and clinical progress in the field of Periodontology and allied disciplines, and to do so at the highest possible level. The Journal also aims to facilitate the application of new scientific knowledge to the daily practice of the concerned disciplines and addresses both practicing clinicians and academics. The Journal is the official publication of the European Federation of Periodontology but wishes to retain its international scope.
The Journal publishes original contributions of high scientific merit in the fields of periodontology and implant dentistry. Its scope encompasses the physiology and pathology of the periodontium, the tissue integration of dental implants, the biology and the modulation of periodontal and alveolar bone healing and regeneration, diagnosis, epidemiology, prevention and therapy of periodontal disease, the clinical aspects of tooth replacement with dental implants, and the comprehensive rehabilitation of the periodontal patient. Review articles by experts on new developments in basic and applied periodontal science and associated dental disciplines, advances in periodontal or implant techniques and procedures, and case reports which illustrate important new information are also welcome.