↓ Skip to main content

Full-mouth treatment modalities (within 24 hours) for chronic periodontitis in adults

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (97th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

blogs
2 blogs
twitter
84 tweeters
facebook
4 Facebook pages
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
150 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Full-mouth treatment modalities (within 24 hours) for chronic periodontitis in adults
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2015
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004622.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Joerg Eberhard, Sören Jepsen, Pia-Merete Jervøe-Storm, Ian Needleman, Helen V Worthington

Abstract

Periodontitis is chronic inflammation that causes damage to the soft tissues and bones supporting the teeth. Mild to moderate periodontitis affects up to 50% of adults. Conventional treatment is quadrant scaling and root planing. In an attempt to enhance treatment outcomes, alternative protocols for anti-infective periodontal therapy have been introduced: full-mouth scaling (FMS) and full-mouth disinfection (FMD), which is scaling plus use of an antiseptic. This review updates our previous review of full-mouth treatment modalities, which was published in 2008. To evaluate the clinical effects of 1) full-mouth scaling (over 24 hours) or 2) full-mouth disinfection (over 24 hours) for the treatment of chronic periodontitis compared to conventional quadrant scaling and root planing (over a series of visits at least one week apart). A secondary objective was to evaluate whether there was a difference in clinical effect between full-mouth disinfection and full-mouth scaling. The following electronic databases were searched: the Cochrane Oral Health Group Trials Register (to 26 March 2015), the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; The Cochrane Library 2015, Issue 2), MEDLINE via OVID (1946 to 26 March 2015), EMBASE via OVID (1980 to 26 March 2015) and CINAHL via EBSCO (1937 to 26 March 2015). We searched the US National Institutes of Health Trials Register (ClinicalTrials.gov) and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing studies. There were no restrictions regarding language or date of publication in the searches of the electronic databases. We scanned reference lists from relevant articles and contacted the authors of eligible studies to identify trials and obtain additional information. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with at least three months of follow-up that evaluated full-mouth scaling and root planing within 24 hours with adjunctive use of an antiseptic such as chlorhexidine (FMD) or without the use of antiseptic (FMS), compared to conventional quadrant scaling and root planing (control). Participants had a clinical diagnosis of chronic periodontitis according to the International Classification of Periodontal Diseases. We excluded studies of people with aggressive periodontitis, systemic disorders or who were taking antibiotics. Several review authors independently conducted data extraction and risk of bias assessment (which focused on method of randomisation, allocation concealment, blinding of examiners and completeness of follow-up). Our primary outcome was tooth loss and secondary outcomes were change in probing pocket depth (PPD), bleeding on probing (BOP) and probing attachment (i.e. clinical attachment level; CAL), and adverse events. We followed the methodological guidelines of The Cochrane Collaboration. We included 12 trials, which recruited 389 participants. No studies assessed the primary outcome tooth loss.Ten trials compared FMS and control; three of these were assessed as being at high risk of bias, three as unclear risk and four as low risk. There was no evidence for a benefit for FMS over the control for change in probing pocket depth (PPD), gain in probing attachment (i.e. clinical attachment level; CAL) or bleeding on probing (BOP). The difference in changes between FMS and control for whole mouth PPD at three to four months was 0.01 mm higher (95% CI -0.17 to 0.19, three trials, 82 participants). There was no evidence of heterogeneity. The difference in changes for CAL was 0.02 mm lower (95% CI -0.26 to 0.22, three trials, 82 participants), and the difference in change in BOP was 2.86 per cent of sites lower (95% CI -7.65 to 1.93, four trials, 120 participants).We included six trials in the meta-analyses comparing FMD and control, with two trials assessed as being at high risk of bias, one as low and three as unclear. The analyses did not indicate a benefit for FMD over the control for PPD, CAL or BOP. The difference in changes for whole-mouth PPD between FMD and control at three to four months was 0.13 mm higher (95% CI -0.09 to 0.34, two trials, 44 participants). There was no evidence of heterogeneity. The difference in changes for CAL was 0.04mm higher (95% CI -0.25 to 0.33, two trials, 44 participants) and the difference in change in BOP being 12.59 higher for FMD (95% CI -8.58 to 33.77, three trials, 68 participants).Three trials were included in the analyses comparing FMS and FMD. The mean difference in PPD change at three to four months was 0.11 mm lower (-0.34 to 0.12, two trials, 45 participants) indicating no evidence of a difference between the two interventions. There was a difference in the gain in CAL at three to four months (-0.25 mm, 95% CI -0.42 to -0.07, two trials, 45 participants), favouring FMD but this was not found at six to eight months. There was no evidence for a difference between FMS and FMD for BOP (-1.59, 95% CI -9.97 to 6.80, two trials, 45 participants).Analyses were conducted for different teeth types (single- or multi-rooted) and for teeth with different levels of probing depth at baseline, for PPD, CAL and BOP. There was insufficient evidence of a benefit for either FMS or FMD.Harms and adverse events were reported in eight studies. The most important harm identified was an increased body temperature after FMS or FMD treatments.We assessed the quality of the evidence for each comparison and outcome as 'low' because of design limitations leading to risk of bias and because of the small number of trials and participants, which led to imprecision in the effect estimates. The inclusion of five additional RCTs in this updated review comparing the clinical effects of conventional mechanical treatment with FMS and FMD approaches for the treatment of chronic periodontitis has not changed the conclusions of the original review. From the twelve included trials there is no clear evidence that FMS or FMD provide additional benefit compared to conventional scaling and root planing. In practice, the decision to select one approach to non-surgical periodontal therapy over another should include patient preference and the convenience of the treatment schedule.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 84 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 150 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Germany 1 <1%
Belgium 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Unknown 147 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 36 24%
Student > Bachelor 22 15%
Student > Postgraduate 19 13%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 8%
Researcher 11 7%
Other 30 20%
Unknown 20 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 89 59%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 7 5%
Psychology 5 3%
Immunology and Microbiology 2 1%
Other 13 9%
Unknown 23 15%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 74. 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 27 February 2020.
All research outputs
#265,416
of 14,575,392 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#643
of 11,016 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,274
of 227,139 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#14
of 232 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 14,575,392 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,016 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 227,139 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 232 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.