SynthesisEvidence-based dentistry2023
The efficacy of subgingival air polishing and subgingival debridement in periodontal support therapy: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Evidence-based dentistry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess whether there is sufficient evidence of a difference in efficacy between subgingival air polishing (SubAP) and subgingival debridement as periodontal support treatment. The systematic review protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database under no. CRD42020213042.
methodsA comprehensive search was conducted using eight online databases to develop straightforward clinical questions and search strategies, from their inception to 27 January 2023. The references of identified reports were also retrieved for inclusion in the analysis. The risk-of-bias of the included studies was evaluated using the Revised Cochrane Risk-of-Bias tool (RoB 2). A meta-analysis was performed on five clinical indicators using the Stata 16 software.
resultsTwelve randomized controlled trials were ultimately included, and most included studies had varying degrees of risk-of-bias. The results of the meta-analysis indicated that there was no significant difference between SubAP and subgingival scaling in terms of improving probing depth (PD), clinical attachment loss (CAL), plaque index (PLI), and bleeding on probing% (BOP%). The results of the visual analogue scale score analysis indicated that SubAP produced less discomfort than did subgingival scaling. DISCUSSION: SubAP can provide better treatment comfort than subgingival debridement. There was no significant difference in the efficacy of the two modalities in improving PD, CAL, and BOP% in supportive periodontal therapy.
conclusionCurrently, evidence for assessing the difference in the efficacy of SubAP and subgingival debridement in improving the PLI is insufficient, and further high-quality clinical studies are needed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37433921What 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.