ArticleEuropean journal of dentistry2025
Clinical Comparison of Guided Biofilm Therapy and Scaling and Root Planing in the Active Phase of Periodontitis Management.
Article in European journal of dentistry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
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
objectiveThe aim of this randomized, controlled, split-mouth study was to compare full-mouth air polishing followed by ultrasonic debridement (known as Guided Biofilm Therapy [GBT]) versus traditional Scaling and Root Planing (SRP), in terms of pocket closure in patients with stages III and IV periodontitis. MATERIALS AND
methodsThe patients underwent periodontal therapy in two sessions. At the beginning of the first session, quadrants I and IV and II and III were randomly assigned to GBT or SRP treatment. Periodontal parameters were collected at baseline, 6 weeks (T1), and 3 months (T2) after therapy. The primary outcome was the number of experimental sites (pocket probing depth [PPD] >4 and <10 mm) becoming closed pockets (PPD ≤ 4 mm bleeding on probing [BOP] negative) at T1 and T2. Secondary outcomes were PPD, recession, clinical attachment level, BOP, and plaque index variations at the experimental sites and treatment time. STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: A 10% difference in the primary outcome between the two protocols was set as the threshold to define inferiority/noninferiority of the test treatment. The primary outcome was modeled using a generalized estimating equation model to account for intrapatient measurement correlation. The estimates are reported as differences between groups' percentages (treatments or time points) and corresponding 95% confidence interval (95% CI). All analyses assumed a significance level of 5%.
resultsA total of 32 patients were selected. Mean PPD (mm) reduced from 6.23 (6.06-6.40) to 3.33 (3.06-3.61) at T2 for GBT, and from 6.21 (6.04-6.38) to 3.32 (3.11-3.53) at T2 for SRP. Both treatments reached a comparable percentage of closed pockets at T1 (77.9% for GBT vs. 80.1% for SRP,
conclusionGBT is a suitable option in the active phase of periodontitis management in patients with stages III and IV periodontitis.
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.