二类牙周功能缺损治疗的临床依据。系统评价和荟萃分析。

Hiskell Fernandes E Oliveira, Fellippo Verri, Cleidiel Aparecido Lemos, Ronaldo Cruz, Victor Eduardo de Souza Batista, Eduardo Pellizzer, Carolina Santinoni
{"title":"二类牙周功能缺损治疗的临床依据。系统评价和荟萃分析。","authors":"Hiskell Fernandes E Oliveira,&nbsp;Fellippo Verri,&nbsp;Cleidiel Aparecido Lemos,&nbsp;Ronaldo Cruz,&nbsp;Victor Eduardo de Souza Batista,&nbsp;Eduardo Pellizzer,&nbsp;Carolina Santinoni","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This systematic review evaluated the most effective therapeutic approach to treat periodontal furcation defects with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. The primary outcome was clinical attachment level (CAL). Secondary outcomes were probing pocket depth, gingival margin level, gingival index and plaque index.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive search of studies published up to December 2019 and listed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) statement. Two reviewers independently searched eligible studies, made a final article selection, and extracted the data of the selected studies to evaluate qualitatively and quantitatively (meta-analysis).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 19 studies were selected for the analysis. Six hundred and eighteen patients (mean age, 45.3) were treated. More commonly used treatment was polytetrafluoroethylene barrier (ePTFE), followed by enamel matrix derivative (EMD) and open-flap debridement (OFD). Only one study evaluated maxillary arch and remaining evaluated mandibular arch. All treatments provided CAL gain, but meta-analysis did not show significant difference among more commonly used treatments and controls (P=0.91; P=0.47; P=0.08, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is no difference on effectiveness of main therapeutic approaches evaluated for treatment of Class II periodontal furcation defects.</p>","PeriodicalId":17281,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the International Academy of Periodontology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Clinical Evidence for Treatment of Class II Periodontal Furcation Defects. Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Hiskell Fernandes E Oliveira,&nbsp;Fellippo Verri,&nbsp;Cleidiel Aparecido Lemos,&nbsp;Ronaldo Cruz,&nbsp;Victor Eduardo de Souza Batista,&nbsp;Eduardo Pellizzer,&nbsp;Carolina Santinoni\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This systematic review evaluated the most effective therapeutic approach to treat periodontal furcation defects with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. The primary outcome was clinical attachment level (CAL). Secondary outcomes were probing pocket depth, gingival margin level, gingival index and plaque index.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive search of studies published up to December 2019 and listed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) statement. Two reviewers independently searched eligible studies, made a final article selection, and extracted the data of the selected studies to evaluate qualitatively and quantitatively (meta-analysis).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Overall, 19 studies were selected for the analysis. Six hundred and eighteen patients (mean age, 45.3) were treated. More commonly used treatment was polytetrafluoroethylene barrier (ePTFE), followed by enamel matrix derivative (EMD) and open-flap debridement (OFD). Only one study evaluated maxillary arch and remaining evaluated mandibular arch. All treatments provided CAL gain, but meta-analysis did not show significant difference among more commonly used treatments and controls (P=0.91; P=0.47; P=0.08, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>There is no difference on effectiveness of main therapeutic approaches evaluated for treatment of Class II periodontal furcation defects.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17281,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the International Academy of Periodontology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of the International Academy of Periodontology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the International Academy of Periodontology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:本系统综述评估了治疗牙周分叉缺损最有效的治疗方法,随访时间至少为12个月。主要观察指标为临床依恋水平(CAL)。次要结果是探测袋深度、牙龈边缘水平、牙龈指数和菌斑指数。方法:根据系统评价首选报告项目(PRISMA)声明,对截至2019年12月发表并在PubMed/MEDLINE、Scopus和Cochrane数据库中列出的研究进行全面检索。两位审稿人独立检索符合条件的研究,进行最终的文章选择,并提取所选研究的数据进行定性和定量评价(meta分析)。结果:共选择19项研究进行分析。618例患者(平均年龄45.3岁)接受了治疗。最常用的治疗方法是聚四氟乙烯屏障(ePTFE),其次是牙釉质基质衍生物(EMD)和开瓣清创(OFD)。只有一项研究评估了上颌弓,其余研究评估了下颌弓。所有治疗均提供CAL增益,但荟萃分析显示更常用的治疗和对照组之间无显著差异(P=0.91;P = 0.47;分别为P = 0.08)。结论:两种主要治疗方法治疗二类牙周功能缺损的疗效无显著差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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 Evidence for Treatment of Class II Periodontal Furcation Defects. Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Background: This systematic review evaluated the most effective therapeutic approach to treat periodontal furcation defects with a minimum follow-up of 12 months. The primary outcome was clinical attachment level (CAL). Secondary outcomes were probing pocket depth, gingival margin level, gingival index and plaque index.

Methods: A comprehensive search of studies published up to December 2019 and listed in PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Library databases was performed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews (PRISMA) statement. Two reviewers independently searched eligible studies, made a final article selection, and extracted the data of the selected studies to evaluate qualitatively and quantitatively (meta-analysis).

Results: Overall, 19 studies were selected for the analysis. Six hundred and eighteen patients (mean age, 45.3) were treated. More commonly used treatment was polytetrafluoroethylene barrier (ePTFE), followed by enamel matrix derivative (EMD) and open-flap debridement (OFD). Only one study evaluated maxillary arch and remaining evaluated mandibular arch. All treatments provided CAL gain, but meta-analysis did not show significant difference among more commonly used treatments and controls (P=0.91; P=0.47; P=0.08, respectively).

Conclusion: There is no difference on effectiveness of main therapeutic approaches evaluated for treatment of Class II periodontal furcation defects.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Periodontal status in cannabis smokers. A systematic review. Impact of Subepithelial Connective Tissue for Root Coverage on Brazilian Patients' Quality of Life: A Longitudinal Clinical Study. Coefficient of variation of red cell distribution width has correlations to periodontal inflamed surface area in non-obese hypertensive patients. Immediate implant placement in periodontally infected sites- A systematic review and meta-analysis. Chitosan-based biomaterial and hyaluronic acid on the repair of intrabuccal bone defects in rats.
×
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