Search

Background. Conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis on nonsurgical treatment of patients with chronic periodontitis by means of scaling and root planing (SRP) with or without adjuncts. Methods. A panel of experts convened by the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs conducted a search of PubMed (MEDLINE) and Embase for randomized controlled trials of SRP with or without the use of adjuncts with clinical attachment level (CAL) outcomes in trials at least 6 months in duration and published in English through July 2014. The authors assessed individual study bias by using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool and conducted meta-analyses to obtain the summary effect estimates and their precision and to assess heterogeneity. The authors used funnel plots and Egger tests to assess publication bias when there were more than 10 studies. The authors used a modified version of the US Preventive Services Task Force methods to assess the overall level of certainty in the evidence. Results. The panel included 72 articles on the effectiveness of SRP with or without the following: systemic antimicrobials, a systemic host modulator (subantimicrobial-dose doxycycline), locally delivered antimicrobials (chlorhexidine chips, doxycycline hyclate gel, and minocycline micro-spheres), and a variety of nonsurgical lasers (photodynamic therapy with a diode laser, a diode laser, neodymium:yttrium-aluminum-garnet lasers, and erbium lasers). Conclusions and Practical Implications. With a moderate level of certainty, the panel found approximately a 0.5-millimeter average improvement in CAL with SRP. Combinations of SRP with assorted adjuncts resulted in a range of average CAL improvements between 0.2 and 0.6 mm over SRP alone. The panel judged the following 4 adjunctive therapies as beneficial with a moderate level of certainty: systemic subantimicrobial-dose doxycycline, systemic antimicrobials, chlorhexidine chips, and photodynamic therapy with a diode laser. There was a low level of certainty in the benefits of the other included adjunctive therapies. The panel provides clinical recommendations in the associated clinical practice guideline. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. A panel of experts convened by the American Dental Association Council on Scientific Affairs presents an evidence-based clinical practice guideline on nonsurgical treatment of patients with chronic periodontitis by means of scaling and root planing (SRP) with or without adjuncts. Methods. The authors developed this clinical practice guideline according to the American Dental Association's evidence-based guideline development methodology. This guideline is founded on a systematic review of the evidence that included 72 research articles providing clinical attachment level data on trials of at least 6 months' duration and published in English through July 2014. The strength of each recommendation (strong, in favor, weak, expert opinion for, expert opinion against, and against) is based on an assessment of the level of certainty in the evidence for the treatment's benefit in combination with an assessment of the balance between the magnitude of the benefit and the potential for adverse effects. Practical Implications and Conclusions. For patients with chronic periodontitis, SRP showed a moderate benefit, and the benefits were judged to outweigh potential adverse effects. The authors voted in favor of SRP as the initial nonsurgical treatment for chronic periodontitis. Although systemic subantimicrobial-dose doxycycline and systemic antimicrobials showed similar magnitudes of benefits as adjunctive therapies to SRP, they were recommended at different strengths (in favor for systemic subantimicrobial-dose doxycycline and weak for systemic antimicrobials) because of the higher potential for adverse effects with higher doses of antimicrobials. The strengths of 2 other recommendations are weak-, chlorhexidine chips and photodynamic therapy with a diode laser. Recommendations for the other local antimicrobials (doxycycline hyclate gel and minocycline microspheres) were expert opinion for. Recommendations for the nonsurgical use of other lasers as SRP adjuncts were limited to expert opinion against because there was uncertainty regarding their clinical benefits and benefit-to-adverse effects balance. Note that expert opinion for does not imply endorsement but instead signifies that evidence is lacking and the level of certainty in the evidence is low. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. A panel of experts convened by the American Dental Association (ADA) Council on Scientific Affairs presents evidence-based clinical recommendations regarding professionally applied and prescription-strength, home-use topical fluoride agents for caries prevention. These recommendations are an update of the 2006 ADA recommendations regarding professionally applied topical fluoride and were developed by using a new process that includes conducting a systematic review of primary studies. Types of Studies Reviewed. The authors conducted a search of MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library for clinical trials of professionally applied and prescription-strength topical fluoride agents-including mouthrinses, varnishes, gels, foams and pastes-with caries increment outcomes published in English through October 2012. Results. The panel included 71 trials from 82 articles in its review and assessed the efficacy of various topical fluoride caries- preventive agents. The panel makes recommendations for further research. Practical Implications. The panel recommends the following for people at risk of developing dental caries: 2.26 percent fluoride varnish or 1.23 percent fluoride (acidulated phosphate fluoride) gel, or a prescription-strength, home-use 0.05 percent fluoride gel or paste or 0.09 percent fluoride mouthrinse for patients 6 years or older. Only 2.26 percent fluoride varnish is recommended for children younger than 6 years. The strengths of the recommendations for the recommended products varied from "in favor" to "expert opinion for." As part of the evidence-based approach to care, these clinical recommendations should be integrated with the practitioner's professional judgment and the patient's needs and preferences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the purpose of nonexperimental observational study designs while also explaining their strengths and weaknesses. These investigations are shown to be useful for the documentation of distribution of diseases in different populations. Despite of being extremely beneficial for developing critical appraisal skills and for guiding clinical research, such studies cannot be relied upon for clinical decision making.