Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40739230›Full record

Observational studyBMC oral health2025

Professional biofilm management during supportive periodontal therapy-a longitudinal observational study.

Miriam Cyris, Georgina Hach, Christof E Dörfer, Karim Fawzy El-Sayed, Christian Graetz

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC oral health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Miriam Cyris *Clinic of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany. cyris@konspar.uni-kiel.de.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8183-9200
Georgina Hach *Clinic of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
Christof E DörferClinic of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
Karim Fawzy El-SayedClinic of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany.
Christian GraetzClinic of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology, University of Kiel, Kiel, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundProfessional mechanical biofilm reduction represents the cornerstone measure during supportive periodontal therapy (SPT). Conventionally, rotating polishing rubber cups (RCs) and brushes with polishing paste or air-polishing (AP) devices using low-abrasive powders can be used. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of both methods in periodontitis patients in a university SPT setting.

methodsPatients diagnosed with periodontitis who attended regular SPT at the Department of Conservative Dentistry and Periodontology at the University Hospital Schleswig-Holstein, Kiel campus, at least once a year between 2018 and 2023 were included. Clinical parameters such as number of teeth and pocket probing depth (PPD) were recorded at T1 (first documented SPT session) and T2 (last documented SPT session).

resultsA total of 430 patients (AP/RC: n = 152/n = 278) with an average age of 60.7(11.5) years, were included. Most patients had Stage III (AP/RC: 56.6%/56.8%) and Grade B (AP/RC: 52%/64.4%) periodontitis. The treatment time was 77.9(21.0) min and did not differ between groups (p = 0.378). No significant differences were found in the number of sites with PPD ≤ 4 mm at T1 or T2 (p > 0.05). Sites with PPD ≥ 5 mm differed significantly at T1 (AP: 8 [4-16], RC: 6 [3-12]; p = 0.002) but not at T2 (AP: 6 [3-13], RC: 5.5 [3-11]; p = 0.104). No significant intergroup differences were notable regarding stability, improvement, or deterioration of sites with PPD ≥ 5 mm over time. However, the AP group had significantly more multirooted teeth with Stage III furcation involvement regardless of bleeding on probing (BOP) at T1 (AP: 2 [1-5], RC: 1 [1-3]; p = 0.046) but not at T2. AP demonstrated a significant advantage in preventing deterioration of PPD ≥ 5 mm in molars (AP: 48 [45.3%], RC: 62 [33.3%]; p = 0.027).

conclusionsBoth methods of professional biofilm removal are similarly effective in terms of stabilizing or improving periodontal sites with PPD ≥ 5 mm when performed regularly. However, in molars with furcation involvement, RC intervention showed more favorable outcomes compared to AP, particularly in preventing the deterioration of sites with PPD ≥ 5 mm, in this study cohort treated in a specialized university-based SPT setting.

trial registrationThe study was retrospectively registered in the DRKS-German Clinical Trials Register ( https://www.drks.de ) with the registration-ID DRKS00037021 (22/05/2025).

Indexed as

BiofilmsDental PolishingPeriodontitisAdultAgedFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleMiddle AgedAir-flowingOral biofilmPeriodontitisProphylaxisRubber cupSupportive periodontal care

Identifiers

PMID40739230
PMCPMC12309074

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.