| Title |
Effect and timing of non-surgical treatment prior to periodontal regeneration: a systematic review
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Clinical Oral Investigations, May 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s00784-015-1493-5 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Luigi Nibali, George Pelekos, Olanrewaju Onabolu, Nikos Donos |
| Abstract |
The aim of this systematic review was to assess the study design and reporting of studies on periodontal regeneration, with respect to the effect of the provision of non-surgical periodontal therapy (NSPT) before surgery. A systematic search of the literature was conducted for studies on periodontal regeneration on Medline and EMBASE, complemented by a manual search. Initially, 3310 potentially eligible articles were identified. A total of 293 studies were included in the review. Nearly 10 % of studies did not include NSPT in the study protocol before regenerative surgery, while 14 % of papers did not report this aspect. Seventy-six percent of studies reported that non-surgical subgingival debridement was performed before periodontal surgery (2 weeks to 6 months before surgery according to the different studies). However, no papers reported clinical and radiographic data before and after NSPT prior to periodontal surgery. Only 45 % of papers reported timing of reassessment following NSPT, prior to proceeding with regenerative surgery. This review highlights the lack of reporting information on non-surgical periodontal therapy prior to periodontal regenerative surgery, calling for a revision of the current clinical protocols and of the study designs of periodontal regenerative surgery studies. Periodontal regenerative surgery protocols should take into account the possible effects of non-surgical periodontal therapy in the clinical and radiographic healing of intrabony defects. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 50% |
| India | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Uruguay | 1 | 2% |
| Brazil | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 39 | 95% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 9 | 22% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 6 | 15% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 6 | 15% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 10% |
| Other | 5 | 12% |
| Unknown | 7 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 21 | 51% |
| Chemistry | 4 | 10% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 3 | 7% |
| Psychology | 1 | 2% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 9 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 May 2015.
All research outputs
#14,653,893
of 22,756,196 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Oral Investigations
#547
of 1,396 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#145,500
of 263,868 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Oral Investigations
#12
of 25 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,756,196 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,396 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 263,868 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 25 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 52% of its contemporaries.