Cited by 351Oral microbiology and periodontitis researchPeriodontal Regeneration and TreatmentsDental Implant Techniques and Outcomes

Subgingival instrumentation for treatment of periodontitis. A systematic review

Open access
Suvan, Jeanie, Leira, Yago, Moreno Sancho, Federico Manuel, Graziani, Filippo, Derks, Jan, Tomasi, Cristiano·2020·Journal of Clinical Periodontology

Abstract

Objectives: To evaluate the efficacy of subgingival instrumentation (PICOS‐1), sonic/ultrasonic/hand instruments (PICOS‐2) and different subgingival instrumentation delivery protocols (PICOS‐3) to treat periodontitis. Methods: Systematic electronic search (CENTRAL/MEDLINE/EMBASE/SCOPUS/LILACS) to March 2019 was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials (RCT) reporting on subgingival instrumentation. Duplicate screening and data extraction were performed to formulate evidence tables and meta‐analysis as appropriate. Results: As only one RCT addressed the efficacy of subgingival instrumentation compared with supragingival cleaning alone (PICOS‐1), baseline and final measures from 9 studies were considered. The weighted pocket depth (PD) reduction was 1.4 mm (95%CI: 1.0 1.7) at 6/8 months, and the proportion of pocket closure was estimated at 74% (95%CI: 64–85). Six RCTs compared hand and sonic/ultrasonic instruments for subgingival instrumentation (PICOS‐2). No significant differences were observed between groups by follow‐up time point or category of initial PD. Thirteen RCTs evaluated quadrant‐wise versus full‐mouth approaches (PICOS‐3). No significant differences were observed between groups irrespective of time‐points or initial PD. Five studies reported patient‐reported outcomes, reporting no differences between groups. Conclusions: Nonsurgical periodontal therapy by mechanical subgingival instrumentation is an efficacious means to achieve infection control in periodontitis patients irrespective of the type of instrument or mode of delivery. Prospero ID: CRD42019124887.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jcpe.13245

Cites

61 of 61 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • A comprehensive systematic review found that scaling and root planing has a weighted average probing depth reduction of 1.40 mm for sites with baseline probing depth of 4 to 6 mm.

    “A comprehensive systemic review article found the PD reductions for the SRP (which is the gold standard for nonsurgical periodontal treatment) have a weighted average PD reduction of 1.40 mm for those sites with baseline PD of 4 to 6 mm.35”

    From Evaluating efficacy of a novel dentifrice in reducing probing depths in Stage I and II periodontitis maintenance patients: A randomized, double-blind, positive controlled clinical trial (2021) · cites this paper as [35]

    Section 3.5 (page unavailable) reports a weighted PD reduction of 1.4 mm at 6–8 months for sites considered together, not for the initially shallow sites. For initially shallow sites, it reports 1.5 mm at 3–4 months and 1.6 mm at 6–8 months; the Discussion describes shallow sites as 4–6 mm. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [3]3. Borenstein, M., Higgins, J. P. T., Hedges, L. V., & Rothstein, H. R. (2017). Basics of meta-analysis: I2 is not an absolute measure of heterogene- ity. Research Synthesis Methods, 8(1), 5-18. https ://doi.org/10.1002/ jrsm.1230
  2. [23]23. Kieser, J. B. (1994). Non-surgical periodontal therapy. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 1st European Workshop on Periodontology, Thurgau, Switzerland

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Suvan, J., Leira, Y., Moreno Sancho, F. M., Graziani, F., Derks, J., & Tomasi, C.
Affiliations
  • Periodontology Unit and Department of Clinical Research University College London Eastman Dental Institute London UK
  • Eastman Dental Hospital (GB)
  • University of Pisa (IT)
  • University of Gothenburg (SE)
Corresponding author
Tomasi, Cristiano
Venue
Journal of Clinical Periodontology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2020-07
Volume
47
Issue
S22
Pages
155-175
ISSN
  • 0303-6979 (ISSN-L)
  • 1600-051X
OpenAlex
W2998289360
Cited by
351
References
61
Citations by year
2026: 46 · 2025: 78 · 2024: 65 · 2023: 63 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 25
FWCI
3.50
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal Of Clinical Periodontology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • CINECA IRIS Institutial research information system (University of Pisa) (submittedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR-INF-0387)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Periodontics › Oral microbiology and periodontitis research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Urology › Periodontal Regeneration and Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Dentistry › Oral Surgery › Dental Implant Techniques and Outcomes
Keywords
subgingival instrumentation, periodontitis, non-surgical periodontal therapy, ultrasonic scaling, hand scaling, pocket depth reduction, patient-reported outcomes, infection control
MeSH terms
Humans, Periodontitis, Dental Scaling, Ultrasonics

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review