Efficacy of glycine powder air-polishing in supportive periodontal therapy: a systematic review and meta-analysis

PURPOSE This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to assess the effects of glycine powder air-polishing (GPAP) in patients during supportive periodontal therapy (SPT) compared to hand instrumentation and ultrasonic scaling. METHODS The authors searched for randomized clinical trials in 8 electronic databases for relevant studies through November 15, 2019. The eligibility criteria were as follows: population, patients with chronic periodontitis undergoing SPT; intervention and comparison, patients treated by GPAP with a standard/nozzle type jet or mechanical instrumentation; and outcomes, bleeding on probing (BOP), patient discomfort/pain (assessed by a visual analogue scale [VAS]), probing depth (PD), gingival recession (Rec), plaque index (PI), clinical attachment level (CAL), gingival epithelium score, and subgingival bacteria count. After extracting the data and assessing the risk of bias, the authors performed the meta-analysis. RESULTS In total, 17 studies were included in this study. The difference of means for BOP in patients who received GPAP was lower (difference of means: -8.02%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -12.10% to -3.95%; P<0.00001; I²=10%) than that in patients treated with hand instrumentation. The results of patient discomfort/pain measured by a VAS (difference of means: -1.48, 95% CI, -1.90 to -1.06; P<0.001; I²=83%) indicated that treatment with GPAP might be less painful than ultrasonic scaling. The results of PD, Rec, PI, and CAL showed that GPAP had no advantage over hand instrumentation or ultrasonic scaling. CONCLUSIONS The findings of this study suggest that GPAP may alleviate gingival inflammation more effectively and be less painful than traditional methods, which makes it a promising alternative for dental clinical use. With regards to PD, Rec, PI, and CAL, there was insufficient evidence to support a difference among GPAP, hand instrumentation, and ultrasonic scaling. Higher-quality studies are still needed to assess the effects of GPAP.