Fogorvosi szemle, 2021 (114. évfolyam, 1-4. szám)

2021-09-01 / 3. szám

FOGORVOSI SZEMLE

114. évf. 3. sz. 2021.

n

142

53. SANZ M, BÄUMER A, BUDUNELI N, et al: Effect of professional mechanical plaque removal on secondary prevention of periodontitis and the complications of gingival and periodontal preventive measures: consensus report of group 4 of the 11th European Workshop on Periodontology on effective prevention of periodontal and peri-implant diseases. J Clin Periodontol 2015; 42 (16): 214–220. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12367

54. RAMSEIER CA, NYDEGGER M, WALTER C, et al: Time between recall visits and residual probing depths predict long-term stability in patients enrolled in supportive periodontal therapy. J Clin Periodontol 2019; 46 (2): 218–230. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.13041

55. COSTA FO, LAGES EJP, COTA LOM, et al: Tooth loss in individuals under periodontal maintenance therapy: 5-year prospective study. J Periodontal Res 2014; 49 (1): 121–128. https://doi.org/10.1111/jre.12087

56. TONETTI MS, CHAPPLE ILC, JEPSEN S, et al: Primary and secondary prevention of periodontal and peri-implant diseases: Introduction to, and objectives of the 11th European Workshop on Periodontology consensus conference. J Clin Periodontol 2015; 42 (16): 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12382

57. VAN DER WEIJDEN FA, SLOT DE: Efficacy of homecare regimens for mechanical plaque removal in managing gingivitis a meta review. J Clin Periodontol 2020; 47 (22): 107–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12359

58. SLOT DE, VALKENBURG C, VAN DER WEIJDEN FA: Mechanical plaque removal of periodontal maintenance patients: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Clin Periodontol 2020; 47 (22): 107–124. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.13275

59. FIGUERO E, HERRERA D, TOBÍAS A, et al: Efficacy of adjunctive anti-plaque chemical agents in managing gingivitis: A systematic review and network meta-analyses. J Clin Periodontol 2019; 46: 723–739. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.13127

60. SERRANO J, ESCRIBANO M, ROLDÁN S, et al: Efficacy of adjunctive anti-plaque chemical agents in managing gingivitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Periodontol 2015; 42: 106–138. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12331

61. CUMMINS D, CREETH JE: Delivery of antiplaque agents from dentifrices, gels, and mouthwashes. J Dent Res 1992; 71: 1439–1449. https://doi.org/10.1177/00220345920710071601

62. ESCRIBANO M, FIGUERO E, MARTÍN C, et al: Efficacy of adjunctive anti-plaque chemical agents: a systematic review and network meta-analyses of the Turesky modification of the Quigley and Hein plaque index. J Clin Periodontol 2016; 43: 1059–1073. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12616

63. TROMBELLI L, FARINA R, POLLARD A, et al: Efficacy of alternative or additional methods to professional mechanical plaque removal during supportive periodontal therapy: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Clin Periodontol 2020; 47: 144–154. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.13269

64. REINHARDT RA, STONER JA, GOLUB LM, et al: Efficacy of sub-antimicrobial dose doxycycline in post-menopausal women: clinical outcomes. J Clin Periodontol

2007; 34 (9): 768–775. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-051X.2007.01114.x

65. CARVALHO VF, ANDRADE PVC, RODRIGUES MF, et al: Antimicrobial photodynamic effect to treat residual pockets in periodontal patients: a randomized controlled clinical trial. J Clin Periodontol 2015; 42 (5): 440–447. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12393

66. PAPAPANOU PN, SANZ M, et al: Periodontitis: consensus report of workgroup 2 of the 2017 World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri-Implant Diseases and Conditions. J Clin Periodontol 2018; 45 (20): 162–170. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpe.12946

PAÁR C, BARTHA B, EPER M, RADÓCZY-DRAJKÓ ZS, SZABÓ G, GERA I

The brief summary of the practical guideline for the treatment of stage I–III periodontitis – according to the EFP clinical practice guideline (2020)

The recently introduced 2017 World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontitis, changed several definitions and diagnostic approaches. Those were summarized and published in the Hungarian scientific media last year. One of the key elements of the new classification is to make a paradigm change and new perspectives in the understanding of the whole plaque related periodontal diseases. For plaque related periodontitis, the new classification incorporated stages and grades of disease, aiming to describe not only disease severity and extent but also its complexity and the contributing risk factors. Therefor it was wise to formulate evidence-based clinical guidelines for practitioners how manage advanced (stage II–III) periodontitis. The EFP Work Groups based on their panel discussions has recently published a very detailed guideline in the J. Clinical Periodontology

(2020; 47: 4–60). Those recommendations cover the whole course of comprehensive periodontal treatment.

The aim: of the Hungarian summary of the EFP protocol is to briefly summarize the 55 pages EFP S3 Level Clinical Practice Guideline (S3 CPG) for the Hungarian dentists and scholars.

Results: The S3 CPG for the management of stages I, II and III periodontitis used a pre-established stepwise approach to therapy based disease stages. Consensus was achieved on recommendations covering incremental, interventions in all steps of therapy. Treatment planning is focusing on – a) behavioural changes, and supragingival biofilm, gingival inflammation and risk factor control; – b) supra- and sub-gingival instrumentation, with and without adjunctive therapies) different types of periodontal surgical interventions; and – d) the necessary supportive periodontal care to extend benefits over time. Those major elements of periodontal care is briefly summarized in this Hungarian version.

Conclusion: This S3 guideline summarizes according to the available evidence at the time of publication the available and most effective methods to treat periodontitis and to maintain periodontal health.

Keywords: clinical guideline; grade; health policy; oral health; periodontal therapy; periodontitis

Review