Suppr超能文献

成人牙周健康的常规洗牙和牙齿抛光。

Routine scale and polish for periodontal health in adults.

作者信息

Beirne P, Forgie A, Worthington H V, Clarkson J E

机构信息

Oral Health Services Research Centre, University Dental School and Hospital, Wilton, Cork, Ireland, Oral Health Services Research Centre, University Dental School and Hospital, Wilton, Cork, Ireland.

出版信息

Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2005 Jan 25(1):CD004625. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD004625.pub2.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Many dentists or hygienists provide scaling and polishing for patients at regular intervals, even if those patients are considered to be at low risk of developing periodontal disease. There is debate over the clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness of 'routine scaling and polishing' and the 'optimal' frequency at which it should be provided.

OBJECTIVES

The main objectives were: to determine the beneficial and harmful effects of routine scaling and polishing for periodontal health; to determine the beneficial and harmful effects of providing routine scaling and polishing at different time intervals on periodontal health; to compare the effects of routine scaling and polishing provided by a dentist or professionals complementary to dentistry (PCD) (dental therapist or dental hygienist) on periodontal health.

SEARCH STRATEGY

We searched the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE. Reference lists from relevant articles were scanned and the authors of eligible studies were contacted where possible to identify trials and obtain additional information. Date of most recent searches: 9th April 2003.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Trials were selected if they met the following criteria: design - random allocation of participants; participants - anyone with an erupted permanent dentition who were judged to have received a 'routine scale and polish' (as defined in this review); interventions - 'routine scale and polish' (as defined in this review) and routine scale and polish provided at different time intervals ; outcomes- tooth loss, plaque, calculus, gingivitis, bleeding and periodontal indices, changes in probing depth, attachment change, patient-centred outcomes and economic outcomes.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Information regarding methods, participants, interventions, outcome measures and results were independently extracted, in duplicate, by two reviewers. Authors were contacted where possible and where deemed necessary for further details regarding study design and for data clarification. A quality assessment of all included trials was carried out. The Cochrane Collaboration's statistical guidelines were followed and both standardised mean differences and weighted mean differences were calculated as appropriate using random-effects models.

MAIN RESULTS

Eight studies were included in this review and all studies were assessed as having a high risk of bias. Two split-mouth studies provided data for the comparison between scale and polish versus no scale and polish. One study, involving patients attending a recall programme following periodontal treatment, found no statistically significant differences for plaque, gingivitis and attachment loss between experimental and control units at each time point during the 1 year trial. The other study, involving adolescents in a developing country with high existing levels of calculus who had not received any dental treatment for at least 5 years, reported statistically significant differences in calculus and gingivitis (bleeding) scores between treatment and control units at 6, 12 and 22 months (in favour of 'scale and polish units') following a single scale and polish provided at baseline to treatment units. For comparisons between routine scale and polish provided at different time intervals, there were some statistically significant differences in favour of scaling and polishing provided at more frequent intervals: 2 weeks versus 6 months, 2 weeks versus 12 months (for the outcomes plaque, gingivitis, pocket depth and attachment change); 3 months versus 12 months (for the outcomes plaque, calculus and gingivitis). There were no studies comparing the effects of scaling and polishing provided by dentists or Professionals Complementary to Dentistry.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The research evidence is of insufficient quality to reach any conclusions regarding the beneficial and adverse effects of routine scaling and polishing for periodontal health and regarding the effects of providing this intervention at different time intervals. High quality clinical trials are required to address the basic questions posed in this review.

摘要

背景

许多牙医或口腔保健员定期为患者进行洗牙和抛光,即便这些患者被认为患牙周病的风险较低。对于“常规洗牙和抛光”的临床效果和成本效益以及应提供该服务的“最佳”频率存在争议。

目的

主要目的为:确定常规洗牙和抛光对牙周健康的有益和有害影响;确定在不同时间间隔进行常规洗牙和抛光对牙周健康的有益和有害影响;比较由牙医或牙科辅助专业人员(PCD)(牙科治疗师或口腔保健员)进行常规洗牙和抛光对牙周健康的影响。

检索策略

我们检索了Cochrane口腔健康组试验注册库、Cochrane对照试验中央注册库(CENTRAL)、MEDLINE和EMBASE。扫描了相关文章的参考文献列表,并在可能的情况下联系合格研究的作者以识别试验并获取更多信息。最近一次检索日期:2003年4月9日。

选择标准

若试验符合以下标准则被选中:设计——参与者随机分配;参与者——任何有恒牙萌出且被判定接受了“常规洗牙和抛光”(如本综述所定义)的人;干预措施——“常规洗牙和抛光”(如本综述所定义)以及在不同时间间隔进行的常规洗牙和抛光;结局——牙齿脱落、牙菌斑、牙结石、牙龈炎、出血和牙周指数、探诊深度变化、附着丧失、以患者为中心的结局和经济结局。

数据收集与分析

两名评审员独立、重复地提取有关方法、参与者、干预措施、结局测量和结果的信息。在可能且必要时联系作者以获取有关研究设计的更多详细信息并澄清数据。对所有纳入试验进行质量评估。遵循Cochrane协作网的统计指南,并使用随机效应模型在适当情况下计算标准化均数差和加权均数差。

主要结果

本综述纳入了八项研究,所有研究均被评估为存在高偏倚风险。两项半口试验提供了洗牙和抛光与不洗牙和抛光之间比较的数据。一项研究涉及接受牙周治疗后参加复诊计划的患者,该研究发现在为期1年的试验中的每个时间点,试验组和对照组在牙菌斑、牙龈炎和附着丧失方面无统计学显著差异。另一项研究涉及一个发展中国家的青少年,他们牙结石水平较高且至少5年未接受任何牙科治疗,该研究报告称在基线时对治疗组进行一次洗牙和抛光后,在6、12和22个月时治疗组和对照组在牙结石和牙龈炎(出血)评分上存在统计学显著差异(有利于“洗牙和抛光组”)。对于不同时间间隔进行的常规洗牙和抛光之间的比较,在一些结局上存在一些统计学显著差异,有利于更频繁进行洗牙和抛光:2周与6个月、2周与12个月(对于牙菌斑、牙龈炎、牙周袋深度和附着丧失结局);3个月与12个月(对于牙菌斑、牙结石和牙龈炎结局)。没有研究比较牙医或牙科辅助专业人员进行洗牙和抛光的效果。

作者结论

研究证据质量不足,无法就常规洗牙和抛光对牙周健康的有益和不良影响以及在不同时间间隔进行该干预的效果得出任何结论。需要高质量的临床试验来解决本综述中提出的基本问题。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验