Appropriate Recall Interval for Periodontal Maintenance: A Systematic Review

Abstract

Objectives-A systematic review of the literature was undertaken to assess the evidence to support a specific time interval between periodontal maintenance (PM) visits.Methods-Relevant articles were identified through searches in MEDLINE, EMBASE and PubMed using specific search terms, until April, 2014, resulting in 1095 abstracts and/or titles with possible relevance. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP) guidelines were used to evaluate the strength of studies and synthesize findings. If mean recall interval was not reported for study groups, authors were contacted to attempt to retrieve this information.Results-Eight cohort studies met the inclusion criteria. No randomized control trials were found. All included studies assessed the effect of PM recall intervals in terms of compliance with a recommended regimen (3-6 months) as a primary outcome. Shorter PM intervals (3-6 months) favored more teeth retention but also statistically insignificant differences between RC and IC/EC, or converse findings are also found. In the 2 studies reporting mean recall interval in groups, significant tooth loss differences were noted as the interval neared the 12 month limit.Conclusions-Evidence for a specific recall interval (e.g. every 3 months) for all patients following periodontal therapy is weak. Further studies, such as RCTs or large electronic database evaluations would be appropriate. The merits of risk-based recommendations over fixed recall interval regimens should be explored.

Time between recall visits and residual probing depths predict long‐term stability in patients enrolled in supportive periodontal therapy

“…During SPT, in patients demonstrating stability, the intervals are increased to 4 or 6 months. According to a recent systematic review, however, the evidence of a lifelong interval of 3 months is weak and intervals of 4-12 months could not be recommended from PPD profiles of periodontitis patients enrolled in SPT (Farooqi, Wehler, Gibson, Jurasic, & Jones, 2015).…”

The effect of supportive care in preventing peri‐implant diseases and implant loss: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

“…For natural dentition, a 5‐year observation study showed shorter recall intervals could be more favorable in plaque reduction and help reduce bleeding tendency but not be additionally beneficial to other clinical parameters (Rosén et al, ). Furthermore, one systemic review failed to prove the necessity of fixed recall interval regimens within 3–6 months (Farooqi, Wehler, Gibson, Jurasic, & Jones, ). In harmony with the findings, one study obtained the results that frequency of visits could not have impacts on peri‐implant health (Ferreira et al, ).…”

Association of chairside salivary aMMP-8 findings with periodontal risk assessment parameters in patients receiving supportive periodontal therapy

“…Risk assessment and the subsequent determination of the maintenance interval are controversial topics in the literature [6303132]. Evidence regarding how to determine the maintenance interval in SPT is still weak [6].…”

“…During SPT, a risk-adapted maintenance interval must be determined, which allows each individual patient to receive appropriate treatment [6]. The classical parameters that serve as a basis for risk assessment are periodontal probing depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BOP), bone loss in relation to the patient's age, tooth loss, records of pre-existing systemic diseases (e.g., diabetes), and environmental risk factors, such as smoking habits [7].…”