Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Evidence Based Periodontology: An Overview: Triveni A Kale, Neha M Mirchandani, Merekhna F Raghavan
Evidence Based Periodontology: An Overview: Triveni A Kale, Neha M Mirchandani, Merekhna F Raghavan
e-ISSN: 2279-0853, p-ISSN: 2279-0861.Volume 14, Issue 7 Ver. II (July. 2015), PP 47-58
www.iosrjournals.org
Abstract: Traditionally, clinical decisions in dentistry have been based on the experience of the clinical
dentist. If a given treatment seemed to work, it was utilized again; if the results were disappointing, the
procedure was deserted. Evaluating clinical treatment in this fashion is difficult because it is hard to know
which factors are important for success and which ones contribute to failure. This came with the concept of
evidence based approach which facilitates conclusions for clinical practice based on sound research studies.
The purpose of this paper is to demonstrate how evidence based approach can both inform on and benefit
healthcare in periodontology
Keywords – Decision making, evidence based approach, meta-analysis, randomized control trial, systematic
review.
I. Introduction
Periodontics is a rapidly changing field with advances in the ability to diagnose, prevent disease and
slow its progression, and regenerate lost periodontium. The recent focus is on clinical decision-making and it is
our duty to offer the best possible care for patients in an evidence-based manner.
Evidence-based approach (EBA) offers a bridge from science to clinical practice.
5. Overcome limitations of underpowered studies in detecting a true difference if such a true difference really
exists.
Levels of evidence
The publication of research in a high-ranking journal may not be an absolute guarantee of quality.
Within the medical literature there are methodological studies which have empirically shown that quality is not
merely a hypothetical concept but also affects study outcomes.
As examples of this, the reviews of Schulz et al. (1995), Moher et al. (1998) and Juni et al. (2001)
showed that in studies in which there was inadequate concealment of treatment allocation, the treatment effects
were exaggerated by about 40% compared to trials of higher quality.[4]
For clarification, it should be remembered that systematic reviews are termed meta-analyses by some in
North America, whereas the term meta-analysis is usually reserved only for the statistical combining of data
which may or may not be part of a systematic review.
The use of checklists with objective criteria helps to safeguard the quality of the quality appraisal
process itself. Written, piloted checklists reduce, but can never completely eliminate individual subjectivity in
decisions. Having a written list means that it is more likely that the quality assessors will be both consistent and
Repeatable. The results of the quality appraisal are used to assess the value of the evidence and to aid clinicians
and reviewers in their efforts to place the evidence into context.
It was concluded that though adjunctive therapies continue to be explored, mechanical debridement is
still the single best option available. It remains the foundation treatment for many adjunctive antimicrobial
treatment investigations.
Short-term clinical outcomes: It included soft tissue changes such as increased CAL and decreased PPD.
Patient-centered outcomes:
It included various factors such as ease of maintenance, change in esthetics, p/o complications,
cost/benefit ratio, and patient well-being.
The meta-analysis done by Needleman et al (2001) and Murphy et al (2003),[12] revealed that: When
compared with OFD, guided tissue regeneration (GTR) showed increase in CAL, decrease in PPD, and defect
fill. When GTR with bone substitutes was compared with GTR alone, the results were similar. No evidence was
found for difference in use of ePTFE versus bioabsorbable membranes.
Long-term clinical outcomes/patient-centered outcomes could not be determined due to lack of
available data. Heterogeneity was large and bias could not be eliminated.
Short-term changes:
Autogenous bone:
Trombelli et al (2002) [13] in his review demonstrated greater CAL gain in autogenous graft group
than the control group, but the result was not statistically significant.
Reynolds et al (2003) [14] showed a statistically significant gain in CAL.
Bone allograft: Use of bone allograft showed gain in CAL, PPD reduction and increased defect fill.
Dentin allograft: Use of dentin allograft showed a gain in CAL of 2.8 mm in grafted patients as compared with
2 mm CAL gain in controls.
Coralline calcium carbonate: Use of the graft showed a gain in CAL and bone fill. But there was no
improvement in pocket depth reduction.
Bioactive glass: There was improvement of bony lesion when compared with open flap debridement [OFD].
Mean difference in CAL between the two was 1.04mm. Change in bone fill noted was greater for
bioactive glass, but the change was not statistically significant. Heterogeneity was present due to a study
conducted by Org et al (2000) [15] which demonstrated a more favorable change following an OFD procedure.
Long-term outcomes:
Fleming et al (1998) [16] did a 6.36 months follow-up study and found that there was 0.12 mm gain in
clinical attachment level gain in test group and 0.43mm decrease in clinical attachment level in control group.
Galgut et al (1992) [17] assessed and compared clinical attachment level at 12 months and 48 months.
The results showed a 0.27mm decrease in clinical attachment level in grafted group and 0.14mm gain in clinical
attachment level gain in open flap debridement group.
Yukna et al (1989) [18] followed up hydroxyapatite grafted patients for a period of five years. The
results showed that two-thirds of the patients showed again in clinical attachment level in the grafted group and
one third of open flap debridement showed a decrease in clinical attachment level.
Patient-centered outcome:
In most of the studies reviewed, there were no systemic or local adverse effects. The adverse effects
noted in some of the studies were.
1. Pebbled surface texture of grafted site
2. Transient slight gingival inflammation
X. Conclusion
The principles of evidence-based healthcare provide structure and guidance to facilitate the highest
levels of patient care. There are numerous components to evidence-based periodontology including the
production of best available evidence, the critical appraisal and interpretation of the evidence, the
communication and discussion of the evidence to individuals seeking care and the integration of the evidence
with clinical skills and patient values. Hence generation of best evidence alone, is not enough to practise
evidence- based healthcare. However, an understanding of the principles should help to underpin the latter
aspects. Evidence-based healthcare is not an easier approach to patient management, but should provide both
clinicians and patients with greater confidence and trust in their mutual relationship.
References
[1]. Sackett DA, Strauss SE, Richardson WS. Evidence-based medicine: How to practice and teach EBM. London: Churchill
Livingstone;2000.
[2]. Reza Pourabbas. Evidence-based Periodontology: From Knowledge and Attitude to Practice. J Periodontol Implant Dent
2012;4(1):1
[3]. Newman M, Caton J, Gunsolly J. Evidence-based periodontology. Ann Periodontol 2003;8:1.
[4]. Ian Needleman, David R. Moles & Helen Worthington. Evidence-based periodontology, systematic reviews and research quality.
Periodontology 2000, vol. 37, 2005, 12–28.
[5]. Muir Gray JA. Evidence-based, locally owned, patient-centred guideline development. Br J Surg; 1997;84(12):1636-7
[6]. EBM Working Group. Evidence-based medicine. JAMA 1992: 268: 2420–2425.
[7]. Needleman IG, Giedrys-Leeper E. Guided tissue regeneration for periodontal infra-bony defects. Cochrane Database Syst Rev
2001;2:CD001724.
[8]. Richards D. Not all evidence is created equal – so what is good evidence? Evid Based Dent 2003: 4: 17–18.
[9]. Carranza FA, Newman MG, Takei HH. Clinical Periodontology.10 th ed. Missouri: Saunders, 2006.
[10]. R. Vijayalakshmi, V. Anitha, T. Ramakrishnan, Uma Sudhakar. Evidence-based periodontal therapy: An overview. J Ind Soc
Periodont - Vol 12, Issue 3, Sep-Dec 2008.
[11]. Labriola A, Needleman I, Moles DR. Systematic review of the effect of smoking on nonsurgical periodontal therapy.
Periodontology 2000;37:124-37.
[12]. Murphy KG, Gunsolley JC. GTR for the treatment of periodontal intrabony and furcation defects: A systematic review. Ann
Periodontol 2003;8:266-302.
[13]. Trombelli I, Heitz-Mayfield LJ, Needleman I. A systematic review of graft materials and biological agents for periodontal
intraosseous defects. J Clin Periodontol 2002;29:117-35.
[14]. Reynolds MA, Branch-Mays GL, Gunsolley JC. The efÞ cacy of bone replacement grafts in the treatment of periodontal osseous
defects: A systematic review. Ann Periodontol 2003;8:227-65.
[15]. Org MM, Eber RM, Wang HL. Evaluation of a bioactive glass alloplast in treating periodontal intrabony defects. J Periodontol
2000;71:1821-8.
[16]. Fleming TF, Ehmke B, Bolz K. Long-term maintenance of alveolar bone gain after implantation of autolyzed, antigen-extracted,
allogenic bone in periodontal intraosseous defects. J Periodontol 1998;69:47-53.
[17]. Galgut PN, Waite IM, Bookshaw JD. A 4 year controlled clinical study into the use of a ceramic hydroxyapatite implant material
for the treatment of periodontal bone defects. J Clin Periodontol 1992;19:57-7.
[18]. Yukna RA, Mayer ET, Amos SM. A 5-year evaluation of Durapatite ceramic alloplastic implants in periodontal osseous defects. J
Periodontol 1989;60:544-51.
[19]. Heitz-MayÞ eld L, Trombelli L, Heitz F. A systematic review of the effect of surgical debridement Vs non-surgical debridement for
the treatment of chronic periodontitis. J Clin Periodontol 2002;29:92-102.
[20]. Antizack A, Joshipura K, Burdick E. Meta-analysis of surgical Vs nonsurgical methods in the treatment of periodontal diseases. J
Clin Periodontol 1993;20:259-68.
[21]. Pagliaro U, Nieri M, Franceschi D, Clauser C, Pini-Prato G. Evidence-based mucogingival therapy, Part I: Critical review of the
literature on root coverage procedures. J Periodontol 2003;74:709-40.
[22]. Taylor TD, Weins J, Carr A. Evidence-based considerations for removable prosthodontic and dental implant occlusion: A literature
review. J Prosthet Dent 2005;94:555-60.