Background: Non-surgical periodontal treatment (NSPT) is widely employed for the treatment of periodontal disease and yields significant clinical improvements. Gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) can be used to profile health and disease, and recent technological advances, such as multiplex bead immunoassays, are promising in identifying a wider array of GCF factors with the ultimate aim to predict the treatment response. Objective: The aim of this systematic review was to compare the expression of GCF markers using multiplex bead immunoassays before treatment and during early, average, or late healing period, following non-surgical periodontal treatment (NSPT). Methods: An electronic literature search was conducted by two independent examiners (VK and NC) in MEDLINE, EMBASE, OpenGrey, LILACS, and Cochrane Library up to January 2020. The PICO question formulated was as follows: "In patients with periodontal disease, does the expression of gingival crevicular fluid (GCF) markers detected using multiplex bead immunoassay differ at baseline compared with early (≤30 days), average (6-8 weeks), or late (≥3 months) healing after intervention?" Results: A total of 366 publications were obtained and reviewed for eligibility for inclusion. Of these, 12 publications fulfilled the inclusion criteria and were included in the present review. Data for a total of 31 different GCF markers were extracted and summarized for early, average, or late healing after NSPT. Early healing following NSPT (≤ 30 days) indicated an increase in IL-1β, TNFα, and IL-10. At the average healing period (6-8 weeks), IL-1β, IL-1α, IL-6, TNF-α, IFN-γ, GM-CSF, MCP-1, and MIP-1α were all reduced, compared to their respective baseline values. Three months after NSPT, IL-1β, IL-4, IL-6, IL-10, TNF-α, and IFN-γ were detected at reduced levels, compared to pre-treatment levels. Overall, the changes following treatment indicated a reduction of inflammation present at baseline. Conclusion: Following non-surgical periodontal treatment, an upregulation of inflammation markers is noted early post-operatively and a subsequent reduction of their levels three months following treatment. The investigation of levels of GCF markers associated with inflammation and regeneration, especially using multiplex bead
Objective This systematic review aims to assess the available literature on the clinical efficacy of hand versus power-driven instruments for subgingival instrumentation during surgical periodontal therapy (ST). Materials and methods A search of the literature was carried out on MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Database, LILACS, and Scopus. RCTs comparing the use of powered instruments (test) to hand scalers (control) for subgingival instrumentation in terms of changes in probing pocket depth (PPD) after surgical periodontal treatment were included and screened in duplicate. Descriptive synthesis of the data and risk of bias assessment were undertaken. Results Four RCTs met the inclusion criteria and were included in this systematic review. ST in all studies was performed by means of open flap debridement. Gracey curettes were the most commonly used hand instruments, while sonic and ultrasonic devices were used in the test group. Sites with initial PPD ≥ 6 mm had pocket reduction ranging from 2.93 to 4.89 mm in the control group and from 2.77 to 3.86 mm in the test group. All studies found no significant difference between the different types of instruments/devices in terms of PPD reduction. Conclusions Despite the limited number of studies, both manual and power-driven instruments appear to be effective in reducing PPD after surgical treatment of periodontitis. Clinical relevance Based on the findings of this systematic review, the clinician may make a decision whether to use manual or powered instruments during ST on a case-by-case basis and considering other factors, such as the risk of creating high concentrations of aerosols. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00784-022-04759-5.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.