Influence of Re-evaluation Timing After Phase I Periodontal Therapy on Clinical and Periodontal Outcomes.

June 25, 2026 updated by: Gulf Medical University

Influence of Re-evaluation Timing After Phase I Periodontal Therapy on Clinical and Periodontal Outcomes. A Split-mouth Study

Periodontal disease remains a highly prevalent chronic inflammatory condition affecting the supporting structures of the teeth and is a leading cause of tooth loss worldwide. Contemporary periodontal therapy is structured into sequential phases, with non-surgical periodontal therapy (NSPT) forming the cornerstone of initial management. Following this phase, re-evaluation of periodontal status is critical to determine treatment outcomes and guide further intervention, including surgical therapy if required (1,2).

Re-evaluation phase serves multiple purposes: it allows assessment of tissue response to therapy, measurement of reductions in probing pocket depth (PPD), gains in clinical attachment level (CAL), and evaluation of patient compliance with oral hygiene practices. It also aids in identifying residual pockets or persistent inflammation that may necessitate additional treatment (1,3). Despite its clinical importance, the optimal timing of re-evaluation remains inconsistently defined in the literature (1). Generally, current literature utilizes a timing frame from 1-3 months; up to 9 months (3,4). Current clinical guidelines, including those from the European Federation of Periodontology (EFP), generally recommend assessing whether the end points have been achieved; no periodontal pockets ≥ 5mm with bleeding on probing and no pocket ≥ 6mm (5).

Emerging evidence suggests that certain clinical improvements, particularly reductions in inflammation and bleeding on probing (BOP), may occur as early as 4 weeks following therapy, raising questions about whether earlier re-evaluation could be clinically beneficial (2,3). Early reassessment may allow for more timely identification of non-responding sites, enabling prompt intervention and potentially improving overall treatment outcomes. Conversely, other studies indicate that full periodontal healing and maturation of tissues may require longer periods, supporting delayed re-evaluation intervals (1,2,3).

Furthermore, patient-related factors such as systemic health, smoking status, and baseline disease severity may influence healing dynamics and thus the appropriate timing for reassessment (1). The heterogeneity of these factors highlights the potential need for a more individualized approach to re-evaluation rather than a fixed universal timeframe.

Despite these considerations, there is a notable lack of high-quality comparative studies directly evaluating short-term versus conventional re-evaluation intervals following NSPT. Most available studies focus on treatment outcomes rather than the timing of reassessment itself. This creates a significant gap in the literature, particularly regarding whether earlier re-evaluation could enhance clinical decision-making, improve patient outcomes, or optimize resource utilization in clinical practice.

In addition, with increasing emphasis on minimally invasive and patient-centered care, there is a growing need to refine periodontal treatment protocols to ensure efficiency without compromising effectiveness. Determining the optimal timing of re-evaluation could contribute to improved treatment planning, reduced disease progression, and enhanced long-term periodontal stability.

Therefore, this study aims to address this gap by investigating the effectiveness and clinical implications of shorter re-evaluation intervals following periodontal therapy, compared to conventional timeframes.

Study Overview

Status

Not yet recruiting

Conditions

Intervention / Treatment

Study Type

Interventional

Enrollment (Estimated)

24

Phase

  • Not Applicable

Contacts and Locations

This section provides the contact details for those conducting the study, and information on where this study is being conducted.

Study Contact

Study Locations

  • United Arab Emirates
    • Ajman Emirate
      • Ajman, Ajman Emirate, United Arab Emirates, 00000
        • Gulf Medical University

Participation Criteria

Researchers look for people who fit a certain description, called eligibility criteria. Some examples of these criteria are a person's general health condition or prior treatments.

Eligibility Criteria

Ages Eligible for Study

  • Adult
  • Older Adult

Accepts Healthy Volunteers

Yes

Description

Inclusion Criteria:

  • Patients above 18 yrs
  • Patients that are systemically healthy
  • Patients diagnosed as Stage III or Stage IV Periodontitis
  • Patients willing to participate in the study and provide informed consent.
  • Patients with no recent history of periodontal therapy
  • Presence of ≥20 natural teeth

Exclusion criteria:

  • Patients with a history of medical conditions or diseases that may affect healing or periodontal tissues.
  • Patients who are pregnant
  • Patients on Drugs/medication that may affect the periodontal tissue
  • Smokers or tobacco users
  • Patients that cannot complete the 12-week follow-up period

Study Plan

This section provides details of the study plan, including how the study is designed and what the study is measuring.

How is the study designed?

Design Details

  • Primary Purpose: Treatment
  • Allocation: Randomized
  • Interventional Model: Single Group Assignment
  • Masking: Single

Arms and Interventions

Participant Group / Arm
Intervention / Treatment
Experimental: Early Re-evaluation Group 4 weeks
Test group with periodontal re-evaluation at 4 weeks following non-surgical periodontal therapy.
Procedure: Early follow up
Test group with periodontal re-evaluation at 4 weeks following non-surgical periodontal therapy
Active Comparator: Delayed Re-evaluation Group 10 - 12 weeks
Control group with periodontal re-evaluation at 8-10 weeks following non-surgical periodontal therapy
Procedure: Delayed follow up
Control group with periodontal re-evaluation at 8-10 weeks following non-surgical periodontal therapy

What is the study measuring?

Primary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Time Frame
clinical attachment level
Time Frame: baseline, 4 weeks, 10 weeks
baseline, 4 weeks, 10 weeks

Secondary Outcome Measures

Outcome Measure
Time Frame
probing depth
Time Frame: baseline, 4 weeks, 10 weeks
baseline, 4 weeks, 10 weeks

Collaborators and Investigators

This is where you will find people and organizations involved with this study.

Sponsor

Gulf Medical University

Study record dates

These dates track the progress of study record and summary results submissions to ClinicalTrials.gov. Study records and reported results are reviewed by the National Library of Medicine (NLM) to make sure they meet specific quality control standards before being posted on the public website.

Study Major Dates

Study Start (Estimated)

June 1, 2026

Primary Completion (Estimated)

January 15, 2027

Study Completion (Estimated)

February 15, 2027

Study Registration Dates

First Submitted

June 25, 2026

First Submitted That Met QC Criteria

June 25, 2026

First Posted (Actual)

July 1, 2026

Study Record Updates

Last Update Posted (Actual)

July 1, 2026

Last Update Submitted That Met QC Criteria

June 25, 2026

Last Verified

June 1, 2026

More Information

Terms related to this study

Keywords

Additional Relevant MeSH Terms

Other Study ID Numbers

  • RabeeaMDSperio

Drug and device information, study documents

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated drug product

No

Studies a U.S. FDA-regulated device product

No

This information was retrieved directly from the website clinicaltrials.gov without any changes. If you have any requests to change, remove or update your study details, please contact register@clinicaltrials.gov. As soon as a change is implemented on clinicaltrials.gov, this will be updated automatically on our website as well.

Subscribe