Table 3 Key characteristics of SPT studies

Hagi et al. [13]

Setting: University

RCT

Test: EPAP with a single-use nozzle (5 s each site)

Primary: Site-specific BOP

Mean BOP:

Parallel

Test = 40.45%; Control = 42.53%

40 SPT subjects

Examiner-masked

Clinical: Full mouth and site-specific PI, BOP, PPD and CAL

Switzerland

(38 completed study)

Control: Hand instruments only, no time limit

Mean PPD reduction:

Duration: 6 months

Test = 0.67 mm; Control = 0.68 mm

Mean age: 54.5 y

Safety assessment: Adverse events at every visit by clinical examination and patient interview

Gender: 15 F, 25 M

Study sites: BOP and PPD of ≥ 4 mm without presence of detectable subgingival calculus, exclude furcation involved and adjacent test sites

Without local anaesthesia

EPAP and curettes resulted in significant but similar reductions of clinical parameters. No statistical difference between both groups for site specific BOP, PPD and CAL

Retreatment: 3-month

Smoking status: Included but not detailed

Timepoints: Baseline, 6-month

No adverse events reported

Kargas et al. [14]

Setting: University

RCT

Negative control:

Primary: PPD change

Mean PPD reduction:

Split mouth

1) Subgingival GPAP—5 s per site

GPAP = 0.26 mm; UD = 0.66 mm; SRP = 0.44 mm

25 SPT subjects

Blinding not mentioned

Clinical: PPD, CAL, GR, GI, PI

Greece

2) Subgingival ultrasonic debridement (UD)

Mean age: 52.5 y

Duration: 6 months

PROMs: Pain perception, cold or pressure (questionnaire at baseline after treatment)

GPAP group had significantly higher PPD than the SRP group at 1,3 and 6 months and higher level of CAL at 1 month. No differences among groups for GR, GI and PI

3) No further subgingival treatment

Gender: 10 F, 15 M

Study site: No BOP and PPD > 4 mm, furcation not specified as an exclusion criterion

Positive control: Subgingival scaling with hand instruments (SRP)

Smoking status: Non-smoker

Timepoints: baseline, 1-, 3- and 6-month

Less pain, no sense of pressure with GPAP

Retreatment: 3-month

Kruse et al. [15]

Setting: University

RCT

Test: APD with trehalose powder and single-use nozzle (total 20 s)

Primary: PPD change

Mean PPD reduction:

Split mouth

Test = 1.86 mm; Control = 1.87 mm

44 SPT subjects

Examiner-masked

Clinical: PPD, CAL, GR, BOP, PI, SBI

Germany

APD and sonic device resulted in significant intra-group reduction of PPD, CAL and BOP after 6 months with no significant inter-group differences

Mean age: 59.7 y

Duration: 6 months

Control: Sonic scaler (total 20 s)

PROMs: VAS score after treatment for each procedure

Gender: 18 F, 26 M

Study site: Single-rooted teeth with PPD 5 mm and BOP or PPD > 5 mm ± BOP

Retreatment: 3-month

Smoking status: Included but not detailed

Timepoints: Baseline, 3- and 6-month

A significant lower incidence of discomfort for air polishing compared to sonic scaling

Muller et al. [18]

Setting: University

RCT

Test: EPAP with a single-use nozzle (5 s each site)

Primary: Presence or absence of PPD > 4 mm per subject

Mean n sites with PD > 4 mm:

Split mouth

Test = 3.6; Control = 3.9

50 SPT subjects

Examiner-masked

Switzerland

(49 completed study)

Control: Ultrasonic scaler (20 s per site)

Clinical: PPD, GR, BOP, PI, root hypersensitivity

The number of pockets > 4 mm per subject, PPD and BOP were significantly lower at month 12 with no significant difference between EPAP therapy and ultrasonic debridement

Duration: 12 months

Mean age: 58.5 y

Study site: PPD > 4 mm with absence of clinically detectable subgingival calculus, furcation not specified as an exclusion criterion

Retreatment: 3-, 6- and 9-month

PROMs: VAS score after each procedure

Gender: 29 F, 21 M

Smoking status: Included but not detailed

Timepoints: Baseline and 12-month

A significant difference in favour of air-polishing for pain / discomfort