Comparison of clinical parameters, microbiological effects and calprotectin counts in gingival crevicular fluid between Er

Wang, Yue; Li, Weiwei; Shi, Li; Zhang, Fengqiu; Zheng, Sun

doi:10.1097/md.0000000000009367

Cited by 11 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Clinical outcome parameters of the 8 articles (7 studies) evaluating laser as monotherapy are shown in Table 3. In order to perform meta-analyses on the primary (i.e., PPD change) and secondary outcome measure (i.e., CAL change), 5 articles including the 6-month PPD and CAL changes and reporting on non-surgical mechanical instrumentation or laser monotherapy in one session were selected [54,56,[59][60][61].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The characteristics of the 8 articles (7 studies) evaluating laser monotherapy are summarized in Table 2 [54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61].…”

Section: Description Of Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The percentage of females ranged from 51.8 to 70.0% and of males from 30.0 to 48.9%, respectively. Smokers were included in 2 studies [58,59], excluded in another two studies [60,61], whereas the remaining studies did not report on tobacco consumption. One study reported on patients diagnosed with aggressive periodontitis [58], and 6 studies on patients diagnosed with chronic periodontitis [54][55][56][57][59][60][61].…”

Section: Study Samplesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Three different types of laser were used in the 7 included studies; 2 different kinds of lasers were used in one study [61]. Diode laser was used in 1 study [58], Er:YAG laser in 6 studies [54][55][56][57][59][60][61], and Er:YAG laser and Nd:YAG laser in 1 study [61].…”

Section: Intervention/comparisonmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Efficacy of laser monotherapy or non-surgical mechanical instrumentation in the management of untreated periodontitis patients. A systematic review and meta-analysis

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To evaluate and compare the effects of laser monotherapy with non-surgical mechanical instrumentation alone in untreated periodontitis patients. Materials and methods A focused question was formulated based on the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, and Study design criteria (PICOS): in patients with untreated periodontitis, does laser mono-therapy provide adjunctive effects on pocket probing depth (PPD) changes compared with non-surgical instrumentation alone? Both randomized controlled clinical trials (RCTs) and controlled clinical trials (CCTs) were included. The results of the meta-analyses are expressed as weighted mean differences (WMD) and reported according to the PRISMA guidelines. Results The search yielded 1268 records, out of which 8 articles could be included. With respect to PPD changes, a meta-analysis including 5 articles (n = 148) failed to identify statistically significant differences in favor of laser monotherapy for PPD change (WMD = 0.14 mm; 95% CI: − 0.04/0.32; z = 1.51; p = 0.132) nor for clinical attachment level (CAL) (WMD = 0.04 mm; 95% CI: − 0.35/0.42; z = 0.19; p = 0.850). Data on cost-effectiveness are lacking. One study reported patient-related outcome measures (PROMS). Conclusions In untreated periodontitis patients, laser monotherapy does not yield superior clinical benefits compared with non-surgical mechanical instrumentation alone. Clinical relevance In untreated periodontitis patients, mechanical instrumentation with hand and/or ultrasonic instruments remains the standard of care.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The characteristics of the 8 articles (7 studies) evaluating laser monotherapy are summarized in Table 2 [54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61].…”

Section: Description Of Included Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Study Samplesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Intervention/comparisonmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Efficacy of laser monotherapy or non-surgical mechanical instrumentation in the management of untreated periodontitis patients. A systematic review and meta-analysis

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…5,6 Manual and ultrasonic instruments are the most common used instruments for SRP. [7][8][9] The use of oscillating scalers and hand instruments improves not only clinical variables but also provokes microbial shifts to less periodontopathogens in the subgingival biofilm. 10 The combined use of hand and ultrasonic instruments is recommended and reduces disadvantages of each of both used types of instruments.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Professional tooth cleaning prior to non‐surgical periodontal therapy: A randomized clinical trial

Jentsch

Heusinger²,

Weickert³

et al. 2019

Journal of Periodontology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background This study was aimed to investigate if professional oral prophylaxis before scaling and root planing (SRP) has an effect on the outcome of non‐surgical periodontal treatment in patients with chronic periodontitis. Methods Fifty‐two individuals with chronic periodontitis receiving non‐surgical periodontal therapy by SRP with (test) and without (control) two appointments of professional tooth cleaning but with motivation and instruction were monitored for clinical variables, four selected microorganisms and two biomarkers at baseline, before SRP as well as 3 and 6 months after SRP. Statistical analysis included non‐parametric tests for intra‐ and intergroup comparisons. Results Probing depth (PD), attachment level, bleeding on probing (BOP), and interproximal plaque index (API) were significantly improved in both groups 3 and 6 months after SRP. PD, BOP, API, and the number of sites with PD ≥5 mm were significantly lower in the test group than in the control group at the appointment immediately before SRP. Tannerella forsythia was significantly reduced in both groups at 3 and 6 months, Porphyromonas gingivalis only in the test group. Interleukin‐1β was significantly reduced in the control group 3 and 6 months after SRP, matrix metalloproteinase‐8 level decreased in the test group 3 months after SRP. There was no significant difference of any clinical and non‐clinical variable between both groups at 3 and 6 months after SRP. Conclusions Professional tooth cleaning before the SRP does not improve the clinical results of the SRP. It has no obvious long‐lasting effects on major periodontopathogens in the subgingival biofilm as well as on biomarkers in the gingival crevicular fluid after SRP.

show abstract

Clinical attachment level gain of lasers in scaling and root planing of chronic periodontitis: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials

Jia

Xie

et al. 2019

Lasers Med Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparison of clinical parameters, microbiological effects and calprotectin counts in gingival crevicular fluid between Er

Abstract: Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text

Cited by 11 publications

References 42 publications

Efficacy of laser monotherapy or non-surgical mechanical instrumentation in the management of untreated periodontitis patients. A systematic review and meta-analysis

Efficacy of laser monotherapy or non-surgical mechanical instrumentation in the management of untreated periodontitis patients. A systematic review and meta-analysis

Professional tooth cleaning prior to non‐surgical periodontal therapy: A randomized clinical trial

Clinical attachment level gain of lasers in scaling and root planing of chronic periodontitis: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About