牙周支持性护理新方案的临床评估:随机对照临床试验。

IF 4.2 2区 医学 Q1 DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE Journal of periodontology Pub Date : 2024-01-31 DOI:10.1002/JPER.23-0527
Alexandra Stähli, Jvana Ferrari, Anna Sophia Schatzmann, Lucienne Dominique Weigel, Andrea Roccuzzo, Jean-Claude Imber, Ho-Yan Duong, Sigrun Eick, Niklaus P Lang, Giovanni E Salvi, Anton Sculean
{"title":"牙周支持性护理新方案的临床评估:随机对照临床试验。","authors":"Alexandra Stähli, Jvana Ferrari, Anna Sophia Schatzmann, Lucienne Dominique Weigel, Andrea Roccuzzo, Jean-Claude Imber, Ho-Yan Duong, Sigrun Eick, Niklaus P Lang, Giovanni E Salvi, Anton Sculean","doi":"10.1002/JPER.23-0527","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The aim of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy and the patient perception of subgingival debridement with either guided biofilm management (GBM) or conventional scaling and root planing (SRP) during supportive periodontal care (SPC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Forty-one patients in SPC were randomly assigned to either treatment with GBM or SRP every 6 months. The primary outcome was the percentage of bleeding on probing (BoP) at 1 year. Moreover, pocket probing depths (PPD), recession, and furcation involvements were also measured. Full-mouth and specific site analyzes were performed at baseline, 6 and 12 months of SPC. Patient comfort was evaluated using a visual analogue scale (VAS) at 12 months.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At 1 year, mean BoP percentage decreased from 12.2% to 9.0% (p = 0.191) and from 14.7% to 7.9% (p = 0.004) for the GBM and SRP groups, respectively. Furcation involved multirooted teeth but no through-and-through lesions were significantly fewer in the GBM than in the SRP group after 12 months (p = 0.015). The remaining parameters showed slight improvement in both groups without any statistically significant differences between the two groups after 1 year. Pain evaluation as patient reported outcome measures (pain evaluation) was in favor (p = 0.347) of the SRP group, while overall satisfaction was similar for both groups. Treatment time was not statistically significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.188).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In well-maintained SPC patients, SRP protocols resulted in significant clinical improvements in terms of BoP; however, for the other clinical improvements, similar efficacy for both GBM and SRP was observed.</p>","PeriodicalId":16716,"journal":{"name":"Journal of periodontology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical evaluation of a novel protocol for supportive periodontal care: A randomized controlled clinical trial.\",\"authors\":\"Alexandra Stähli, Jvana Ferrari, Anna Sophia Schatzmann, Lucienne Dominique Weigel, Andrea Roccuzzo, Jean-Claude Imber, Ho-Yan Duong, Sigrun Eick, Niklaus P Lang, Giovanni E Salvi, Anton Sculean\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/JPER.23-0527\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The aim of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy and the patient perception of subgingival debridement with either guided biofilm management (GBM) or conventional scaling and root planing (SRP) during supportive periodontal care (SPC).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Forty-one patients in SPC were randomly assigned to either treatment with GBM or SRP every 6 months. The primary outcome was the percentage of bleeding on probing (BoP) at 1 year. Moreover, pocket probing depths (PPD), recession, and furcation involvements were also measured. Full-mouth and specific site analyzes were performed at baseline, 6 and 12 months of SPC. Patient comfort was evaluated using a visual analogue scale (VAS) at 12 months.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>At 1 year, mean BoP percentage decreased from 12.2% to 9.0% (p = 0.191) and from 14.7% to 7.9% (p = 0.004) for the GBM and SRP groups, respectively. Furcation involved multirooted teeth but no through-and-through lesions were significantly fewer in the GBM than in the SRP group after 12 months (p = 0.015). The remaining parameters showed slight improvement in both groups without any statistically significant differences between the two groups after 1 year. Pain evaluation as patient reported outcome measures (pain evaluation) was in favor (p = 0.347) of the SRP group, while overall satisfaction was similar for both groups. Treatment time was not statistically significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.188).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>In well-maintained SPC patients, SRP protocols resulted in significant clinical improvements in terms of BoP; however, for the other clinical improvements, similar efficacy for both GBM and SRP was observed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16716,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of periodontology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of periodontology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/JPER.23-0527\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"DENTISTRY, ORAL SURGERY & MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of periodontology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/JPER.23-0527","RegionNum":2,"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

摘要

研究背景本研究的目的是比较在支持性牙周治疗(SPC)过程中,龈下清创与引导生物膜管理(GBM)或传统洗牙和根面平整(SRP)的临床疗效和患者感受:41名SPC患者被随机分配到每6个月一次的GBM或SRP治疗中。主要结果是一年后探诊出血(BoP)的百分比。此外,还测量了牙周袋探诊深度(PPD)、牙龈退缩和窝沟受累情况。在 SPC 基线、6 个月和 12 个月时进行全口和特定部位分析。12个月时使用视觉模拟量表(VAS)对患者的舒适度进行评估:一年后,GBM 组和 SRP 组的平均 BoP 百分比分别从 12.2% 降至 9.0%(p = 0.191)和从 14.7% 降至 7.9%(p = 0.004)。12 个月后,GBM 组涉及多生根牙齿但没有贯穿性病变的毛面明显少于 SRP 组(p = 0.015)。1 年后,两组的其余参数均有轻微改善,但两组间无统计学意义上的显著差异。作为患者报告结果测量指标(疼痛评估),SRP 组的疼痛评估更优(p = 0.347),而两组的总体满意度相似。两组的治疗时间在统计学上无明显差异(p = 0.188):结论:对于维护良好的 SPC 患者,SRP 方案在 BoP 方面带来了显著的临床改善;但在其他临床改善方面,GBM 和 SRP 的疗效相似。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Clinical evaluation of a novel protocol for supportive periodontal care: A randomized controlled clinical trial.

Background: The aim of this study was to compare the clinical efficacy and the patient perception of subgingival debridement with either guided biofilm management (GBM) or conventional scaling and root planing (SRP) during supportive periodontal care (SPC).

Methods: Forty-one patients in SPC were randomly assigned to either treatment with GBM or SRP every 6 months. The primary outcome was the percentage of bleeding on probing (BoP) at 1 year. Moreover, pocket probing depths (PPD), recession, and furcation involvements were also measured. Full-mouth and specific site analyzes were performed at baseline, 6 and 12 months of SPC. Patient comfort was evaluated using a visual analogue scale (VAS) at 12 months.

Results: At 1 year, mean BoP percentage decreased from 12.2% to 9.0% (p = 0.191) and from 14.7% to 7.9% (p = 0.004) for the GBM and SRP groups, respectively. Furcation involved multirooted teeth but no through-and-through lesions were significantly fewer in the GBM than in the SRP group after 12 months (p = 0.015). The remaining parameters showed slight improvement in both groups without any statistically significant differences between the two groups after 1 year. Pain evaluation as patient reported outcome measures (pain evaluation) was in favor (p = 0.347) of the SRP group, while overall satisfaction was similar for both groups. Treatment time was not statistically significantly different between the two groups (p = 0.188).

Conclusion: In well-maintained SPC patients, SRP protocols resulted in significant clinical improvements in terms of BoP; however, for the other clinical improvements, similar efficacy for both GBM and SRP was observed.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of periodontology
Journal of periodontology 医学-牙科与口腔外科
CiteScore
9.10
自引率
7.00%
发文量
290
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Periodontology publishes articles relevant to the science and practice of periodontics and related areas.
期刊最新文献
Appraising the life-course impact of Epstein-Barr virus exposure and its genetic signature on periodontitis. Effectiveness of nonsurgical re‐instrumentation: Tooth‐related factors ISSUE INFORMATION Gingival inflammation and leukocyte-endothelium cell interactions in women with polycystic ovary syndrome. Clinical outcomes of using operating microscope for alveolar ridge preservation: 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