See you in three months! The rationale for the three monthly peridontal recall interval: a risk based approach

Darcey, James; Ashley, Martin

doi:10.1038/sj.bdj.2011.868

Cited by 30 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Comprehensive studies have revealed that if caries, gingivitis and periodontitis are diagnosed at an early stage, systematic prophylaxis – especially professional tooth cleaning at regular intervals – is necessary to avoid incidence or progression . Furthermore, they have shown a positive effect of professional prophylaxis on oral health , as well as individual and patient‐focused recall intervals are essential for the long term success . In addition, different types of oral hygiene instruction showed a beneficial effect on adults' oral hygiene .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Oral health of dental assistants and patients receiving maintenance – an investigation based on a district of Thuringia, Germany

Ziebolz

Klopfleisch

Fresmann

et al. 2013

Int J Dental Hygiene

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Oral health of dental assistants and patients receiving maintenance – an investigation based on a district of Thuringia, Germany

Ziebolz

Klopfleisch

Fresmann

et al. 2013

Int J Dental Hygiene

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, postoperative data were reported at different mo in the studies included. Consequently, the mean difference between control and test groups was analyzed at three mo, as this is the time required for periodontal regeneration according to the literature . In the absence of data at three mo, values of the nearest mo were chosen.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical application of mesenchymal stem cells in periodontal regeneration: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Novello

Debouche

Marie

et al. 2019

J of Periodontal Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To evaluate the potential efficacy of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) in periodontal regeneration in humans on the following main outcomes: clinical attachment level (CAL), probing depth (PD), and gingival recession (GR). Background The clinical application of stem cells in periodontal regeneration has begun in recent years, but clinical practices are not yet standardized and no recommendations are available at this time. Methods Electronic database searches and hand searches were conducted. All types of studies, case series, and case reports were qualitatively described. Double‐blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating MSCs in periodontal regeneration were included in a meta‐analysis if they compared administration of MSCs vs application of stem cell‐free therapy in the control group, in healthy patients with periodontal defects, with a minimum of three mo of follow‐up. Results Fifteen reports were included in qualitative analysis, involving 123 patients and 158 periodontal defects. Only two small RCTs at high risk of bias, with a total of 59 patients and 70 periodontal defects, were included in the meta‐analysis. A small but significant difference between test and control groups was found for CAL at three mo (−0.90 mm, 95% CI [−1.51; −0.29]), but not for PD and GR. Conclusion Low‐quality evidence suggests that MSC‐based therapy may have a small impact on periodontal regeneration. However, due to the monocentric character, the small sample size, and potential heterogeneity across the two included RCTs, these results must not be considered as definitive. High‐quality RCTs are needed before any clinical use of MSCs in periodontal regeneration.

show abstract

“…2 Maintenance is lifelong and is tailored to patients' individual needs based on susceptibility to disease and medical history, severity of initial disease and response to APT with a typical recall interval of 3 months being allocated in the first year. 3,4 The evidence supporting the importance of regular, wellexecuted PM is unequivocal. [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15] Aside from the significant clinical benefit, preservation of periodontal health through PM can prevent tooth loss and prosthetic replacement involving further biologic risks and financial expenses.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Periodontal maintenance begins when patients have achieved an acceptable degree of periodontal stability as demonstrated by clinical attachment level (CAL) gains, reduction in pocket probing depths (PPDs) and bleeding‐on‐probing (BoP) levels compared to baseline readings and a demonstrable improvement in plaque control . Maintenance is lifelong and is tailored to patients' individual needs based on susceptibility to disease and medical history, severity of initial disease and response to APT with a typical recall interval of 3 months being allocated in the first year . The evidence supporting the importance of regular, well‐executed PM is unequivocal .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Periodontal maintenance following active specialist treatment: Should patients stay put or return to primary dental care for continuing care? A comparison of outcomes based on the literature

Leavy

Robertson

2017

Int J Dental Hygiene

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives: To review the evidence for the efficacy of periodontal maintenance (PM) carried out in primary dental care (PDC) compared to the specialist setting for patients previously treated in a specialist setting for chronic (ChP) or aggressive (AgP) periodontitis. Methods:A focused PICO question and search protocol were developed. Online databases including MEDLINE, EMBASE, WEB OF SCIENCE™ and COCHRANE LIBRARY were searched along with specialist journals in the subject area of periodontal research.Selection criteria included studies that investigated delivery of PM in both specialist and PDC settings for patients with ChP or AgP over a minimum 12 months. We looked for studies that reported changes in clinical attachment levels (CAL), tooth loss, pocket probing depths (PPDs) and bleeding on probing (BoP) as outcome measures.Results: Eight cohort studies were chosen for inclusion. There was considerable heterogeneity found between the eight studies, which did not allow for quantitative (meta) analysis and statistical testing of differences between groups. Clinical attachment levels remained relatively stable in patients who received specialist PM with mean changes of −0.42 mm to +0.2 mm, while for those enrolled in PDC-based PM for periods >12 months, mean CAL losses were between −0.13 mm and −2.80 mm. PPD reduction for those subjects receiving specialist PM was between 0.05 and 1.8 mm for five studies but two cohorts experienced increases of 0.32 and 0.80 mm, respectively.Increases of up to 2.90 mm (range: −0.1 to +2.90) and a higher proportion of deeper pockets were noted among PDC PM cohorts. Higher rates of BoP among those in receipt of PDC PM were reported in half of all studies. There were insufficient long-term data to make any firm conclusions about the effect of the delivery of PM on tooth loss. Conclusion:Within the limitations of the data available, it appears that specialist PM is effective in sustaining periodontal stability following active specialist intervention.There is limited evidence that PDC provides the same level of care; however, the limited comparative data available suggest that outcomes could be slightly worse in PDC. | INTRODUCTIONPeriodontal maintenance (PM) follows active periodontal therapy (APT) and aims to prevent periodontal disease progression through close monitoring of the periodontal condition along with supra-and subgingival debridement and behaviour modification. | MATERIAL AND METHODSThe following PICO question was utilized to develop our review protocol:"for patients who have received specialist treatment for periodontitis (P), does receiving periodontal maintenance in PDC (I) prove as effective as receiving it in a specialist setting (C) in preventing disease progression and recurrence? (O)" A checklist based on the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Metaanalyses) statement 18 was used and is summarized below (Figure 1). | Eligibility criteriaThe hierarchy of evidence search scope for this review included randomized controlled cli...

show abstract

See you in three months! The rationale for the three monthly peridontal recall interval: a risk based approach

Cited by 30 publications

References 42 publications

Oral health of dental assistants and patients receiving maintenance – an investigation based on a district of Thuringia, Germany

Oral health of dental assistants and patients receiving maintenance – an investigation based on a district of Thuringia, Germany

Clinical application of mesenchymal stem cells in periodontal regeneration: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Periodontal maintenance following active specialist treatment: Should patients stay put or return to primary dental care for continuing care? A comparison of outcomes based on the literature

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About