Comparison of full-mouth disinfection and quadrant-wise scaling in the treatment of adult chronic periodontitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis

• Published in: Journal of periodontal research Vol. 51; no. 4; pp. 417 - 430
• Main Authors: Fang, H., Han, M., Li, Q.-L., Cao, C. Y., Xia, R., Zhang, Z.-H.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Blackwell Publishing Ltd 01-08-2016
• Subjects: Adult; chronic periodontitis; Chronic Periodontitis - therapy; Dental Scaling; Dentistry; Disinfection; full-mouth debridement; Humans; quadrant-wise scaling; Root Planing; full-mouth debridement; chronic periodontitis; quadrant-wise scaling; root planing
• ISSN: 0022-3484; 1600-0765
• DOI: 10.1111/jre.12326

Scaling and root planing are widely considered as effective methods for treating chronic periodontitis. A meta‐analysis published in 2008 showed no statistically significant differences between full‐mouth disinfection (FMD) or full‐mouth scaling and root planing (FMS) and quadrant scaling and root planing (Q‐SRP). The FMD approach only resulted in modest additional improvements in several indices. Whether differences exist between these two approaches requires further validation. Accordingly, a study was conducted to further validate whether FMD with antiseptics or FMS without the use of antiseptics within 24 h provides greater clinical improvement than Q‐SRP in patients with chronic periodontitis. Medline (via OVID), EMBASE (via OVID), PubMed and CENTRAL databases were searched up to 27 January 2015. Randomized controlled trials comparing FMD or FMS with Q‐SRP after at least 3 mo were included. Meta‐analysis was performed to obtain the weighted mean difference (WMD), together with the corresponding 95% confidence intervals. Thirteen articles were included in the meta‐analysis. The WMD of probing pocket depth reduction was 0.25 mm (p < 0.05) for FMD vs. Q‐SRP in single‐rooted teeth with moderate pockets, and clinical attachment level gain in single‐ and multirooted teeth with moderate pockets was 0.33 mm (p < 0.05) for FMD vs. Q‐SRP. Except for those, no statistically significant differences were found in the other subanalyses of FMD vs. Q‐SRP, FMS vs. Q‐SRP and FMD vs. FMS. Therefore, the meta‐analysis results showed that FMD was better than Q‐SRP for achieving probing pocket depth reduction and clinical attachment level gain in moderate pockets. Additionally, regardless of the treatment, no serious complications were observed. FMD, FMS and Q‐SRP are all effective for the treatment of adult chronic periodontitis, and they do not lead to any obvious discomfort among patients. Moreover, FMD had modest additional clinical benefits over Q‐SRP, so we prefer to recommend FMD as the first choice for the treatment of adult chronic periodontitis.