Benefits of Dental Scaling and Polishing in Adults: A Rapid Review and Evidence Synthesis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This rapid review assessed evidence to inform policy on the clinical effectiveness and optimal frequency of dental scaling and polishing (S&P) for adults, including those with low incomes eligible for the Canadian Dental Care Plan. METHODS: A rapid review was conducted according to Cochrane Recommendations for Rapid Reviews. Populations included all adults, adults with periodontitis, and those with inequitable access to dental care. Primary outcomes included gingival inflammation, probing depths, and tooth loss. Secondary outcomes included oral health-related quality of life and economic impact. Four databases were searched for randomized clinical trials, systematic reviews, cohort studies, and practice guidelines. Risk of bias was evaluated using Cochrane Risk of Bias, Newcastle-Ottawa, ROBIS, and AGREE II tools. A qualitative synthesis was planned. RESULTS: In total, 3,181 references were retrieved: 4 applied to "all adults" and 4 to those with periodontitis. All reports had low risk of bias. One systematic review and one multicenter trial of adults with regular dental care found no clinical benefit regardless of S&P interval; however, patients valued and were willing to pay for regular scaling. One claims-based study reported regular S&P reduced tooth loss, and 2 clinical practice guidelines found a reduced risk of future attachment and tooth loss, lower overall health care costs for diabetes, and reduced costs for and incidence of acute myocardial infarction in those with regular S&P. There were no studies of underserved populations. CONCLUSIONS: For adults with no or early periodontal disease and regular access to dental care, routine S&P may have little clinical benefit but reduces tooth loss and some health care expenses. In patients with periodontitis, scaling intervals tailored to individual risk profile and periodontal status can maintain health. There is no evidence on the impact of routine S&P on patients with barriers accessing care.Knowledge Transfer Statement:In terms of the benefits of routine scaling and polishing in adults, this rapid review found mixed evidence with a high level of certainty due to minimal risk of bias in the appraised studies for "regular dental attenders" and those with a diagnosis of periodontal diseases. Tailored intervals for dental scaling are beneficial for those diagnosed with periodontitis but may not provide the clinical benefits previously expected for adults at low risk. There is no evidence that dental polishing is effective. No evidence was found to support recommendations about the clinical effectiveness of scaling or the most appropriate recall intervals for scaling for low-income Canadians eligible for dental services under the new Canadian Dental Care Plan.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".