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。

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,&nbsp;Gerson Pedro José Langa,&nbsp;Roberto Pereira Pimentel,&nbsp;João Roig Martins,&nbsp;Daniela Haubman Pereira,&nbsp;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":null,"pages":null},"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,&nbsp;Gerson Pedro José Langa,&nbsp;Roberto Pereira Pimentel,&nbsp;João Roig Martins,&nbsp;Daniela Haubman Pereira,&nbsp;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\":null,\"pages\":null},\"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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:系统回顾有关手、超声器械在牙周炎非手术治疗中的疗效的文献。材料和方法:我们检索了5个随机临床试验数据库,比较了手工牙周治疗和超声牙周非手术治疗的结果。使用牙周治疗后3个月或6个月计算的临床附着水平(CAL)和探诊袋深度(PPD)的平均差异(MD)进行了四项荟萃分析。结果:纳入18项研究。所有纳入的研究都显示,在两种测试的牙周治疗中,至少有一种牙周参数有显著改善。与手动仪器相比,超声波仪器花费的时间要少得多。在牙周治疗后3个月和6个月,两种治疗之间的CAL增加没有统计学上的显著差异(MD;95%置信区间:0.05;-0.21-0.30和-0.23;-0.59 - -0.12)。同样,在随访3个月时,两种治疗方法在PPD减少方面也没有统计学上的显著差异(MD;95%置信区间:-0.03;-0.34 - -0.28)。6个月后,PPD降低0.21 (95%CI: -0.43-0.00, p=0.05)。结论:用手和超声仪器进行牙周治疗的结果相似。然而,更低偏倚风险的进一步研究是必要的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

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
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信