IADR Abstract Archives
Influence of Periodontal Diagnosis on the Efficacy of Adjunctive Antiseptics
Objectives: To answer the following PICO question: In systemically healthy humans with gingival inflammation, is there any influence of periodontal diagnosis (gingivitis [GinP] or previously treated periodontitis patients [PTPP]) on the efficacy of antiseptic agents used adjunctively to mechanical plaque control, in terms of changes in gingival (GI) or plaque indices (PlI), in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) with at least 6 months’ follow up?
Methods: After designing the protocol, a systematic search was conducted in three databases in order to identify 6-month RCTs. Data were extracted and outcomes were summarized as means and standard deviation (SD) or standard error of the mean. The results were pooled and analyzed using weighted mean differences (WMD) or standardized mean differences (SMD). Meta-regressions were performed to identify if periodontal diagnosis affected the results.
Results: Out of 1,139 references, 94 were included in this systematic review and 70 studies were included in data analyses. Regarding GI changes, although the PTPP tended to have greater reductions (n=16; SMD=-1.564; 95% confidence interval –CI- [-2.197; -0.931]; p<0.001) when compared to the GinP (n=44; SMD=-1.289, 95% CI [-1.560; -1.018]; p<0.001), meta-regression did not find significant differences between them (coefficient=-0.266; 95% CI [-1.027; 0.495]; p=0.487). Considering percentage of bleeding, meta-regression did not identify significant differences in reductions when comparing GinP vs PTPP (coefficient=-1.10%; 95% CI [-11.03%; 8.83%]; p=0.821). With regard to PlI, PTPP tended to have greater reductions (n=20; SMD=-1.374; 95% CI [-1.120; -0.894]; p<0.001) than GinP (n=58; SMD=-1.043; 95% CI [-1.240; -0.841]; p<0.001). However, there were no statistically significant differences between them according to the meta-regression (coefficient= -0.323; 95% CI [-0.814; 0.169]; p=0.195).
Conclusions: The antiseptic agents were similarly effective in reducing gingivitis and plaque in patients with gingivitis on intact periodontium or previously treated periodontitis patients with gingival inflammation.
Methods: After designing the protocol, a systematic search was conducted in three databases in order to identify 6-month RCTs. Data were extracted and outcomes were summarized as means and standard deviation (SD) or standard error of the mean. The results were pooled and analyzed using weighted mean differences (WMD) or standardized mean differences (SMD). Meta-regressions were performed to identify if periodontal diagnosis affected the results.
Results: Out of 1,139 references, 94 were included in this systematic review and 70 studies were included in data analyses. Regarding GI changes, although the PTPP tended to have greater reductions (n=16; SMD=-1.564; 95% confidence interval –CI- [-2.197; -0.931]; p<0.001) when compared to the GinP (n=44; SMD=-1.289, 95% CI [-1.560; -1.018]; p<0.001), meta-regression did not find significant differences between them (coefficient=-0.266; 95% CI [-1.027; 0.495]; p=0.487). Considering percentage of bleeding, meta-regression did not identify significant differences in reductions when comparing GinP vs PTPP (coefficient=-1.10%; 95% CI [-11.03%; 8.83%]; p=0.821). With regard to PlI, PTPP tended to have greater reductions (n=20; SMD=-1.374; 95% CI [-1.120; -0.894]; p<0.001) than GinP (n=58; SMD=-1.043; 95% CI [-1.240; -0.841]; p<0.001). However, there were no statistically significant differences between them according to the meta-regression (coefficient= -0.323; 95% CI [-0.814; 0.169]; p=0.195).
Conclusions: The antiseptic agents were similarly effective in reducing gingivitis and plaque in patients with gingivitis on intact periodontium or previously treated periodontitis patients with gingival inflammation.