Clinical efficacy of hand and power-driven instruments for subgingival instrumentation during periodontal surgical therapy: a systematic review

Objective This systematic review aims to assess the available literature on the clinical efficacy of hand versus power-driven instruments for subgingival instrumentation during surgical periodontal therapy (ST).Materials and methods A search of the literature was carried out on MEDLINE via Ovid, Embase, Web of Science, the Cochrane Database, LILACS, and Scopus. RCTs comparing the use of powered instruments (test) to hand scalers (control) for subgingival instrumentation in terms of changes in probing pocket depth (PPD) after surgical periodontal treatment were included and screened in duplicate. Descriptive synthesis of the data and risk of bias assessment were undertaken.Results Four RCTs met the inclusion criteria and were included in this systematic review. ST in all studies was performed by means of open flap debridement. Gracey curettes were the most commonly used hand instruments, while sonic and ultrasonic devices were used in the test group. Sites with initial PPD >= 6 mm had pocket reduction ranging from 2.93 to 4.89 mm in the control group and from 2.77 to 3.86 mm in the test group. All studies found no significant difference between the different types of instruments/devices in terms of PPD reduction.Conclusions Despite the limited number of studies, both manual and power-driven instruments appear to be effective in reducing PPD after surgical treatment of periodontitis.Clinical relevance Based on the findings of this systematic review, the clinician may make a decision whether to use manual or powered instruments during ST on a case-by-case basis and considering other factors, such as the risk of creating high concentrations of aerosols.