Francisco Wilker Mustafa Gomes Muniz, Gerson Pedro José Langa, Roberto Pereira Pimentel, João Roig Martins, Daniela Haubman Pereira, Cassiano Kuchenbecker Rösing
{"title":"用手与声波/超声仪器进行牙周治疗的比较:系统综述与meta分析。","authors":"Francisco Wilker Mustafa Gomes Muniz, Gerson Pedro José Langa, Roberto Pereira Pimentel, João Roig Martins, Daniela Haubman Pereira, Cassiano Kuchenbecker Rösing","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>To systemically review the literature on the effect of hand and sonic/ultrasonic instruments used for the non-surgical treatment of periodontitis.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Five databases were searched for randomized clinical trials that compared the results of periodontal treatment using hand and sonic/ultrasonic for nonsurgical periodontal treatment. Four meta-analyses were performed, using the calculated mean differences (MD) between baseline and 3-months or 6-months after periodontal treatment for clinical attachment level (CAL), and probing pocket depth (PPD).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighteen studies were included. All included studies showed significant improvement, in at least one periodontal parameter, in both tested periodontal therapies. The sonic/ultrasonic instruments spend significantly less time in comparison to manual instrumentation. At both 3- and 6-months after periodontal therapy, no statistically significant differences were detected for CAL gain between therapies (MD; 95%CI: 0.05; -0.21-0.30 and -0.23; -0.59-0.12). Similarly, no statistically significant differences were detected for PPD reduction between therapies at 3-months of follow-up (MD; 95%CI: -0.03; -0.34-0.28). After 6-months, the PPD reduction was 0.21 (95%CI: -0.43-0.00, p=0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Similar results may be expected for the periodontal treatment performed with hand and sonic/ultrasonic instruments. However, further studies with lower risk of bias are warranted.</p>","PeriodicalId":17281,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the International Academy of Periodontology","volume":"22 4","pages":"187-204"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Comparison Between Hand and Sonic/ Ultrasonic Instruments for Periodontal Treatment: Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Francisco Wilker Mustafa Gomes Muniz, Gerson Pedro José Langa, Roberto Pereira Pimentel, João Roig Martins, Daniela Haubman Pereira, Cassiano Kuchenbecker Rösing\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aims: </strong>To systemically review the literature on the effect of hand and sonic/ultrasonic instruments used for the non-surgical treatment of periodontitis.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>Five databases were searched for randomized clinical trials that compared the results of periodontal treatment using hand and sonic/ultrasonic for nonsurgical periodontal treatment. Four meta-analyses were performed, using the calculated mean differences (MD) between baseline and 3-months or 6-months after periodontal treatment for clinical attachment level (CAL), and probing pocket depth (PPD).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Eighteen studies were included. All included studies showed significant improvement, in at least one periodontal parameter, in both tested periodontal therapies. The sonic/ultrasonic instruments spend significantly less time in comparison to manual instrumentation. At both 3- and 6-months after periodontal therapy, no statistically significant differences were detected for CAL gain between therapies (MD; 95%CI: 0.05; -0.21-0.30 and -0.23; -0.59-0.12). Similarly, no statistically significant differences were detected for PPD reduction between therapies at 3-months of follow-up (MD; 95%CI: -0.03; -0.34-0.28). After 6-months, the PPD reduction was 0.21 (95%CI: -0.43-0.00, p=0.05).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Similar results may be expected for the periodontal treatment performed with hand and sonic/ultrasonic instruments. However, further studies with lower risk of bias are warranted.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17281,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of the International Academy of Periodontology\",\"volume\":\"22 4\",\"pages\":\"187-204\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-10-01\",\"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}
Comparison Between Hand and Sonic/ Ultrasonic Instruments for Periodontal Treatment: Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.
Aims: To systemically review the literature on the effect of hand and sonic/ultrasonic instruments used for the non-surgical treatment of periodontitis.
Materials and methods: Five databases were searched for randomized clinical trials that compared the results of periodontal treatment using hand and sonic/ultrasonic for nonsurgical periodontal treatment. Four meta-analyses were performed, using the calculated mean differences (MD) between baseline and 3-months or 6-months after periodontal treatment for clinical attachment level (CAL), and probing pocket depth (PPD).
Results: Eighteen studies were included. All included studies showed significant improvement, in at least one periodontal parameter, in both tested periodontal therapies. The sonic/ultrasonic instruments spend significantly less time in comparison to manual instrumentation. At both 3- and 6-months after periodontal therapy, no statistically significant differences were detected for CAL gain between therapies (MD; 95%CI: 0.05; -0.21-0.30 and -0.23; -0.59-0.12). Similarly, no statistically significant differences were detected for PPD reduction between therapies at 3-months of follow-up (MD; 95%CI: -0.03; -0.34-0.28). After 6-months, the PPD reduction was 0.21 (95%CI: -0.43-0.00, p=0.05).
Conclusion: Similar results may be expected for the periodontal treatment performed with hand and sonic/ultrasonic instruments. However, further studies with lower risk of bias are warranted.