Trial reportJournal of periodontal research2026
Timing of Re-Evaluation After Periodontal Therapy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.
Trial report in Journal of periodontal research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT06086821 (Clinical Relevance of Different Time of Periodontal Re-evaluation), which is not on this 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.
Clinical Relevance of Different Time of Periodontal Re-evaluation
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
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimTo evaluate clinical and patient reported outcomes after subgingival instrumentation at two different re-evaluation timings in stage III/IV periodontitis and the influence of clinical and radiographic variables on final outcomes.
methodsForty participants were assigned to 3-month (control) or 6-month (test) re-evaluation after steps 1-2 of therapy. The primary outcome was the number of teeth reaching the Endpoints of Treatment (EoT). EoT was defined as a site with PPD < 6 mm or PPD = 4/5 mm without BoP. Secondary outcomes included changes in clinical parameters and in oral health-related quality of life (OHIP-14) scores. ANOVA, ANCOVA, mixed-effects models and multilevel models were applied.
resultsThirty-six patients completed the study. Patients allocated to the 3-month group had 15.8 ± 4.0 teeth reaching the EoT, accounting for 65.8% ± 14.3 of the teeth, while patients assigned to the 6-month group had 15.5 ± 5.9 (64.9% ± 21.5), without statistically significant differences. Percentages of sites achieving EoT were 68.5% ± 11.6 in the 3-month group and 71.9% ± 14.4 in the 6-month group, without statistically significant differences. Final OHIP-14 scores were 6.5 ± 8.9 in the 3-month group and 7.3 ± 7.5 in the 6-month group, without statistically significant differences. Risk for residual pockets at re-evaluation was influenced by higher baseline PPD (p < 0.0001), plaque (PI) at site level (p = 0.011), molar tooth (p = 0.012), furcation involvement (p < 0.0001), shallow intrabony defect (p = 0.018), deep intrabony defect (p = 0.002).
conclusionNo difference in clinical and patient-centered outcomes was observed between groups. NSPT frequently failed to achieve EoT at pockets with intrabony defects, while EoT were frequently achieved at sites with mainly horizontal bony defects.
trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT06086821 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06086821?cond=re-evaluation%20periodontal&rank=1).
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.