Summary of findings 3. FMS versus FMD for the treatment of adult chronic periodontitis.
| FMS versus FMD for the treatment of adult chronic periodontitis | ||||||
| Patient or population: adults with chronic periodontitis Settings: university dental departments Intervention: FMS versus FMD | ||||||
| Outcomes | Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of Participants (studies) | Quality of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Assumed risk | Corresponding risk | |||||
| FMD | FMS | |||||
| Tooth loss | Not reported in any of the trials. | |||||
| Change in PPD; single‐ and multi‐rooted teeth ‐ Whole mouth probe Follow‐up: 3‐4 months | The mean change in PPD; single‐ and multi‐rooted teeth ‐ whole mouth ranged across FMS groups from 0.69 to 2.58 mm | The mean change in PPD; single‐ and multi‐rooted teeth ‐ whole mouth in the intervention groups was 0.11 lower (0.34 lower to 0.12 higher) | 45 (2 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1 | Similar result was found for the longer follow‐up of 6 to 8 months. Subgroup analyses were undertaken for 1) single‐ and multi‐rooted teeth separately, and 2) for teeth with initial moderate (5‐6 mm) or high (> 6 mm) levels of PPD. |
|
| Change in CAL; single‐ and multi‐rooted teeth ‐ Whole mouth Follow‐up: 3‐4 months | The mean change in CAL; single‐ and multi‐rooted teeth ‐ whole mouth ranged across FMS groups from 0.56 ‐ 1.99 mm | The mean change in CAL; single‐ and multi‐rooted teeth ‐ whole‐mouth in the intervention groups was 0.25 lower (0.42 lower to 0.07 lower) | 45 (2 studies) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1 | The result for the 6 to 8 month follow‐up was not significant and did not indicate a benefit for FMS. Subgroup analyses were undertaken for 1) single‐ and multi‐rooted teeth separately, and 2) for teeth with initial moderate (5‐6 mm) or high (> 6 mm) levels of PPD. There was no consistent evidence of a benefit for either intervention |
|
| Change in BOP; single‐ and multi‐rooted teeth ‐ Whole mouth probe Follow‐up: 3‐4 months | The mean change in BOP; single‐ and multi‐rooted teeth ‐ whole mouth ranged across FMS groups from 22 to 23 percent | The mean change in BOP; single‐ and multi‐rooted teeth ‐ whole mouth in the intervention groups was 1.59 lower (9.97 lower to 6.80 higher) | 45 (2 studies) | ⊕⊕⊕⊝ low1 | The result for the 6 to 8 month follow‐up had a smaller treatment effect and also did not indicate a benefit for either intervention. Subgroup analyses were undertaken for 1) single‐ and multi‐rooted teeth separately, and 2) for teeth with initial moderate (5‐6 mm) or high (> 6 mm) levels of PPD. There was no consistent evidence of a benefit for either intervention |
|
| *The basis for the assumed risk (e.g. the median control group risk across studies) is provided in footnotes. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI). CI: confidence interval; FMD: full mouth disinfection; FMS: full mouth scaling; PPD: probing pocket depth; CAL: clinical attachment level; BOP: bleeding on probing (BOP) | ||||||
| GRADE Working Group grades of evidence High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect. Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate. Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate. Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate. | ||||||
1One trial at high and one at unclear risk of bias. Small number of trials and participants. Downgraded two levels for design limitations and imprecision.