Felipe Cid M.; Javiera Jara J.; Loreto Huerta C. & Patricio Oliva M.
Summary
The efficacy of photodynamic therapy as an adjunct to conventional periodontal therapy evaluated by comparing with conventional therapy alone in the treatment of periodontal pockets in adult patients with chronic periodontitis based on clinical trials between 2010 and 2015, to determine if its use can provide better results for treating this disease. Prospective randomized clinical trials and randomized clinical trials or non-randomized, controlled and uncontrolled that allowed comparison between a group which was applied to conventional therapy and photodynamic therapy, a similar group was selected to which you He applied only conventional therapy. Data from clinical trials entered into Review Manager®. Three meta-analyzes for the variables analyzed were performed: Level clinical attachment (NIC) and probing depth (PS), the test of I2 was used to measure the heterogeneity of the study and then a sensitivity analysis to determine which studies awardedheterogeneity. As results, seven studies analyzed in 186 patients who underwent treatment at least controlled within 3 months post treatment. The mean difference was used, a confidence interval of 95 % to measure the NIC and PS. At 3 months, no significant differences in NIC (p= 0.93) and PS (p= 0.71). In conclusion, the photodynamic therapy complementary to conventional therapy does not provide better clinical or statistical results compared with conventional therapy to evaluate the clinical attachment level. In assessing probing depth, is advisable to use conventional therapy alone.
KEY WORDS: chronic periodontitis, photodynamic therapy, non-surgical periodontal treatment, periodontal disease, clinical attachment level, probing depth.
How to cite this article
CID, M. F.; JARA, J. J.; HUERTA, C. L. & OLIVA, M. P. Effectiveness photodynamic therapy complementing conventional periodontal therapy versus conventional therapy in the treatment of adult patients with chronic periodontitis: a systematic review with meta-analyses. Int. J. Odontostomat., 10(2):315-323, 2016.