4.5 Review

Use of air polishing for supra- and subgingival biofilm removal for treatment of residual periodontal pockets and supportive periodontal care: a systematic review

Journal

CLINICAL ORAL INVESTIGATIONS
Volume 25, Issue 3, Pages 779-795

Publisher

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00784-020-03762-y

Keywords

Periodontitis; Periodontal diseases; Therapeutics; Oral hygiene

Funding

  1. CAPES (Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel-Brazilian Ministry of Education) [001]
  2. CNPq (Council for Scientific and Technological Development-Brazilian Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovations) [307808/2018-1]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The efficacy of air polishing compared to hand or ultrasonic instrumentation in reducing periodontal inflammation was found to be similar in the review of 13 studies. However, caution is needed in interpreting the findings due to methodological issues and potential conflicts of interest related to industry funding.
Aim To systematically review the literature to compare the efficacy of air polishing to hand or ultrasonic instrumentation to reduce periodontal inflammation during treatment of residual pockets or supportive periodontal care. Methods Electronic searches were performed in five different databases, and two databases were used to capture the grey literature partially. Clinical trials that compared the use of an air-polishing device to either conventional scaling and root planing (hand and/or ultrasonic instrumentation) or no treatment during periodontal therapy were included without restriction of year and publication status. The Joanna Briggs Institute instrument for clinical trials was used to appraise the studies critically. The results were submitted to qualitative descriptive analysis. The systematic review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD420220156176). Results Electronic searches found 1100 hits published between 2008 and 2019. Thirteen studies were included in the review, out of which four had a follow-up longer than 180 days. Results indicated no differences between the efficacy of air polishing and hand or ultrasonic instruments to reduce periodontal inflammation. Conclusions Our findings suggest that there is no difference in the efficacy of air polishing and hand or ultrasonic instrumentation to control biofilm and reduce periodontal inflammation. However, these findings must be carefully interpreted owing to methodological issues, including a short follow-up, and a potential conflict of interest related to industry funding.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available