Cargando…

Clinical Effectiveness of Er: YAG Lasers Adjunct to Scaling and Root Planing in Non-Surgical Treatment of Chronic Periodontitis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND: Er: YAG lasers (ERLs) show suitable characteristics for scaling and root planing, but previous studies have drawn conflicting conclusions. This meta-analysis aimed to systematically appraise the available evidence concerning the effectiveness of ERLs as an adjunct to scaling and root pla...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ma, Lei, Zhang, Xiaolin, Ma, Zhe, Shi, Hong, Zhang, Yanning, Wu, Mingxuan, Cui, Wei
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: International Scientific Literature, Inc. 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6186153/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30289123
http://dx.doi.org/10.12659/MSM.911863
Descripción
Sumario:BACKGROUND: Er: YAG lasers (ERLs) show suitable characteristics for scaling and root planing, but previous studies have drawn conflicting conclusions. This meta-analysis aimed to systematically appraise the available evidence concerning the effectiveness of ERLs as an adjunct to scaling and root planing (SRP) for non-surgical periodontal treatment. MATERIAL/METHODS: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing ERLs+SRP with SRP alone for the treatment of chronic periodontitis were searched in 9 electronic biomedical databases up to January 2018. The weighted mean differences (WMDs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were counted for probing depth (PD) reduction, clinical attachment level (CAL) gain, and visual analog scale (VAS) score. Heterogeneity was evaluated with the I(2) statistic for interstudy comparisons and the χ(2)-based Q statistic for intra-study comparisons. Sensitivity analysis was conducted by switching to a random or fixed effect model based on the heterogeneity. Publication bias was measured by Begg’s test. RESULTS: Ten related RCTs met the inclusion criteria. There were statistically significant differences in the assessed clinical parameters at the three-month follow-up: PD reduction (WMD=0.32, 95%CI range from 0.14 to 0.51, p<0.001; p=0.003, I(2)=69.7%); CAL gain (WMD=0.31, 95%CI range from 0.22 to 0.40, p<0.001; p=0.209, I(2)=28.8%); and VAS scores (WMD=−1.38, 95%CI range from −2.45 to −0.31, p<0.001; p=0.182, I(2)=44%). There were no significant differences at the six- and twelve-month follow-ups. Sensitivity analysis revealed that the results were consistent. No evidence of publication bias was detected. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic analysis demonstrated that ERLs+SRP provides additional short-term effectiveness and that patients experience less pain compared to SRP. There were no significant differences at the medium-term and long-term follow-ups. Long-term well-designed RCTs are required.