Zhikai Lin1,2, Franz J Strauss3,4, Niklaus P Lang1, Anton Sculean1, Giovanni E Salvi1, Alexandra Stähli5. 1. Department of Periodontology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse 7, 3010, Bern, Switzerland. 2. Department of Periodontology, Ninth People's Hospital, Shanghai JiaoTong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, China. 3. Clinic of Reconstructive Dentistry, Center of Dental Medicine, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland. 4. Department of Conservative Dentistry Faculty of Dentistry , University of Chile , Santiago, Chile. 5. Department of Periodontology, School of Dental Medicine, University of Bern, Freiburgstrasse 7, 3010, Bern, Switzerland. alexandra.staehli@zmk.unibe.ch.
Abstract
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.
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.
Authors: Andrea Roccuzzo; Jean-Claude Imber; Alexandra Stähli; Dimitrios Kloukos; Giovanni E Salvi; Anton Sculean Journal: Clin Oral Investig Date: 2022-04-07 Impact factor: 3.606