The Effect of Photodynamic Therapy for Periodontitis: A Systematic Review and Meta‐Analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness of photodynamic therapy (PDT) for periodontitis in adults as a primary mode of treatment or as an adjunct to non-surgical treatment of scaling and root planing (SRP) compared to a conventional non-surgical SRP treatment. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, other relevant databases, and the International Pharmaceutical Abstracts were searched from their inception until May 2009 for randomized controlled trials of PDT compared to a placebo, no intervention, or non-surgical treatment in an adult population. Data on changes in clinical attachment level (CAL), probing depth, gingival recession, and full-mouth plaque or bleeding scores were extracted and meta-analyzed, and the pooled mean difference (MD) was reported. RESULTS: Five studies were included in this review. These studies had a small sample size for some of the performed analysis with a moderate to high risk of biases. There were clinical heterogeneities among included studies. PDT as an independent treatment or as an adjunct to SRP versus a control group of SRP did not demonstrate statistically or clinically significant advantages. Combined therapy of PDT + SRP indicated a probable efficacy in CAL gain (MD: 0.34; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.05 to 0.63) or probing depth reduction (MD: 0.25 mm; 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.45 mm). CONCLUSIONS: PDT as an independent treatment or as an adjunct to SRP was not superior to control treatment of SRP. Therefore, the routine use of PDT for clinical management of periodontitis cannot be recommended. Well-designed clinical trials are needed for proper evaluation of this therapy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it