AIM: To assess the efficacy and adverse effects of resective surgery compared to access flap in patients with periodontitis. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials with a follow-up ≥6 months were identified in ten databases. Screening, data extraction, and quality assessment were conducted by two reviewers. The primary outcome was probing pocket depth, and the main secondary outcome was clinical attachment level. Data on adverse events were collected. Meta-analysis was used to synthesize the findings of trials. RESULTS: A total of 880 publications were identified. Fourteen publications from nine clinical trials met the inclusion criteria and were included for analysis. Meta-analysis was carried out using all available results. The results indicated superior pocket depth reduction following resective surgery compared to access flap after 6-12 months of follow-up (weighted mean difference 0.47 mm; confidence interval 0.7-0.24; p = .010). After 36-60 months of follow-up, no differences were found between the two treatments in pocket depth and attachment level. The prevalence of adverse effects was not different between the groups. Post-operative recession tended to be more severe for the resective approaches. CONCLUSION: Resective surgical approach was superior to access flap in reducing pocket depth 6-12 months post-surgery, while no differences between the two modalities were found at 36-60 months of follow-up.
AIM: To assess the efficacy and adverse effects of resective surgery compared to access flap in patients with periodontitis. METHODS: Randomized controlled trials with a follow-up ≥6 months were identified in ten databases. Screening, data extraction, and quality assessment were conducted by two reviewers. The primary outcome was probing pocket depth, and the main secondary outcome was clinical attachment level. Data on adverse events were collected. Meta-analysis was used to synthesize the findings of trials. RESULTS: A total of 880 publications were identified. Fourteen publications from nine clinical trials met the inclusion criteria and were included for analysis. Meta-analysis was carried out using all available results. The results indicated superior pocket depth reduction following resective surgery compared to access flap after 6-12 months of follow-up (weighted mean difference 0.47 mm; confidence interval 0.7-0.24; p = .010). After 36-60 months of follow-up, no differences were found between the two treatments in pocket depth and attachment level. The prevalence of adverse effects was not different between the groups. Post-operative recession tended to be more severe for the resective approaches. CONCLUSION: Resective surgical approach was superior to access flap in reducing pocket depth 6-12 months post-surgery, while no differences between the two modalities were found at 36-60 months of follow-up.