ArticleClinical oral investigations2020
How to train periodontal endoscopy? Results of a pilot study removing simulated hard deposits in vitro.
Article in Clinical oral investigations, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- The efficiency of periodontal endoscopy in non-surgical periodontal therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in dental medicine · 2025Pooled it
- [Comparison of clinical effects between periodontal endoscopy aiding subgingival debridement and flap surgery].Beijing da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Peking University. Health sciences · 2023Trial
- Efficacy of scaling and root planning with periodontal endoscopy for residual pockets in the treatment of chronic periodontitis: a randomized controlled clinical trial.Clinical oral investigations · 2022Trial
- Effect of massed versus distributed preclinical training on subgingival instrumentation skill across the preclinical-to-clinical transition.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Enhancing online teaching of "subgingival scaling and root planing" through periodontal endoscopy assistance: a study on its application in a teaching-practicing module.BMC oral health · 2026Article
- Adhesive and injectable hydrogel microspheres for NRF2-mediated periodontal bone regeneration.International journal of oral science · 2025Article
- Efficacy of Periodontal Endoscopy during Subgingival Debridement to Treat Periodontitis: A Systematic Review of Randomized Clinical Trials.Dentistry journal · 2023Review
- Effects of Periodontal Endoscopy-Assisted Nonsurgical Treatment of Periodontitis: Four-Month Results of a Randomized Controlled Split-Mouth Pilot Study.International journal of dentistry · 2022Article
- Evaluation of a systematic digitized training program on the effectivity of subgingival instrumentation with curettes and sonic scalers in vitro.Clinical oral investigations · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThere is uncertainty regarding the benefits of periodontal endoscopy (PE) for subgingival instrumentation. Moreover, the influence of operators' experience and training with such a device on treatment results is unclear. Therefore, we compared in an in vitro study the use of PE for scaling and root planing (SRP) with the conventional non-surgical therapy, hypothesizing that using a PE allows to remove more simulated hard deposits than without (nPE), influenced by the operators' experience and training. MATERIAL AND
methodsA sonic device and Gracey curettes were utilized by 11 operators (six dentists, five dental hygienists) in periodontitis manikins heads. The time required for treatment and the proportion of removed simulated hard deposits by SRP were measured.
resultsUsing the PE led to a significant difference in removal of simulated hard deposits (%) (mean ± SD) irrespective of operators' experience (PE 90.78 ± 12.10% (range 58.80-100%); nPE 79.98 ± 22.15% (range 38.10-100%, p < 0.001)), sub-analyses for different tooth types demonstrated a significant difference in favor of PE for front teeth (p < 0.001) and in the upper jaw independent of the tooth type (p < 0.001). Comparison of treatment times for two quadrants with and without PE showed a significantly longer treatment time with PE (∆22.27 ± 17.98 mins, p <0.001).
conclusionsWithin the present pilot study, the use of PE led to more removal of simulated hard deposits but was concomitantly related to more time and financial effort. Using PE was most beneficial in the front area. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: PE may provide additional benefits for the removal of hard deposits compared to traditional SRP. The beneficial effect of PE seems not to be influenced by operators experience nor by pocket probing depth.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.