km.idaeo.ai · IDAEO 知識庫

🏛 Part of the "dental" topic shelf →

The Three Phases of Periodontal Treatment: Non-Surgical Therapy, Surgery and Supportive Maintenance — What Each One Is Solving

About 15 min read
#牙醫KM#牙周

When a dentist says "periodontal treatment is done in phases", many people misread it as: the first phase did not work, so the second phase of surgery is needed. That is not how it is.

The Three Phases of Periodontal Treatment: Non-Surgical Therapy, Surgery and Supportive Maintenance — What Each One Is Solving

Direct answer: The three phases deal with problems of different kinds; they are not an escalation because an earlier phase failed. Non-surgical therapy brings inflammation down, surgery deals with sites that non-surgical therapy cannot resolve, and supportive maintenance is consistently associated with keeping teeth in the long run: a 2015 meta-analysis of 8 studies found that the risk of tooth loss was significantly lower among regular attenders than among erratic attenders — an association, not a demonstrated causal effect[F2].
Geographic scope: This article is general health education based on international literature. It does not address the insurance system or regulations of any particular country; for arrangements regarding care and fees, follow the rules that apply where you live.

TL;DR — The three phases are not "escalation because the first one failed"; each deals with something different

When a dentist says "periodontal treatment is done in phases", many people misread it as: the first phase did not work, so the second phase of surgery is needed.

That is not how it is. The three phases deal with problems of different kinds:

  • Non-surgical therapy — removing calculus and bacterial biofilm so that inflammation subsides, and seeing how far the gingiva can recover on its own
  • Surgery — dealing with sites that non-surgical therapy cannot reach, or where bone has already been lost
  • Supportive maintenance — preventing a situation that has improved from deteriorating again

Each phase also has a clear point at which it is observed. Research shows that after non-surgical therapy most of the reduction in probing pocket depth and gain in clinical attachment occurs in the first 1 to 2 months, though further improvement in pocket depth still occurs beyond that point [F1]. This is why your dentist arranges for you to "come back for assessment after treatment" rather than deciding on the day whether to operate.

Over the long run, the phase with the most consistent association with outcome is in fact the third: in a 2015 meta-analysis of 8 studies, patients attending regularly had a pooled risk ratio for tooth loss of 0.56 (95% CI 0.38 to 0.82) compared with irregular attenders [F2]. That is an association, not causation.

Phase One: non-surgical therapy — bringing the inflammation down first

What this phase is doing

The core of non-surgical therapy (also often called non-surgical periodontal treatment or subgingival instrumentation) is to remove the calculus and bacterial biofilm below the gingiva so that inflamed tissue has a chance to recover.

It is not simply "a scale and polish" — a scale and polish deals with the visible part above the gingiva, whereas non-surgical therapy goes inside the periodontal pocket.

When the effect appears

There are very clear data on this. One systematic review and meta-analysis specifically assessed how periodontal parameters change at different time points after subgingival instrumentation, and when periodontal re-evaluation should be scheduled [F1].

The review searched 4 databases and included randomised controlled trials that assessed probing pocket depth at at least two non-baseline time points, finally including 29 randomised controlled trials, all of which entered the meta-analysis [F1]. The analysis distinguished initially shallower pockets (4 to 5 mm) from deeper ones (≥ 6 mm), and took three time points: 1 to 2 months, 3 to 4 months and 5 to 6 months [F1]:

  • For both shallow and deep pockets, there were small but clinically meaningful changes between 1 to 2 months and 3 to 4 months, and between those time points and 5 to 6 months [F1]
  • The review concluded that in systemically healthy patients most of the reduction in probing pocket depth and gain in clinical attachment level occurs in the first 1 to 2 months after subgingival instrumentation [F1]
  • But further improvement in pocket depth continues beyond these early time points [F1]

What this means for you

This explains two things that are often misunderstood:

  1. Why the decision to operate is not made immediately after treatment — the tissues are still recovering, and what you see if you assess too early is not the final result
  2. Why re-evaluation is usually scheduled some months after treatment — most of the improvement is complete in the first 1 to 2 months, but there is still room for further improvement afterwards [F1]

Phase Two: surgery — why some sites need it and others do not

Some defect morphologies respond differently to non-surgical therapy

Not every periodontal site can be resolved by non-surgical therapy. The pattern of bone destruction affects the result.

One systematic review assessed how "intrabony defects" and "suprabony defects" differ in their response to Step II periodontal therapy and to repeated subgingival instrumentation [F3]. The review screened 2,348 articles initially and finally included 5 [F3]:

  • Two studies reported the reduction in probing pocket depth 6 months after Step II therapy, but the two pointed in opposite directions: one gave 3.2 ± 1.9 mm for intrabony and 2.2 ± 1.7 mm for suprabony; the other gave 0.48 ± 0.42 mm for intrabony and 0.72 ± 0.36 mm for suprabony [F3]
  • One study found no difference at 3 months [F3]
  • One study showed that 9 months after non-surgical Step III therapy, the presence of intrabony defects was negatively correlated with the reduction in pocket depth (P < .05) [F3]

The review's conclusion is honest: because the number of studies is limited and the data are heterogeneous, the evidence on how intrabony and suprabony defects differ in their response to non-surgical therapy is contradictory [F3].

In other words, the literature has not yet been able to give a one-size-fits-all rule. Whether you need to move on to the surgical phase still depends on the re-evaluation of your individual sites.

How things look in the long term once surgery has been done

If assessment leads to the surgical phase, particularly for intrabony defects, the common options are "periodontal regenerative surgery" and "open flap debridement".

One systematic review and meta-analysis compared the long-term results of the two, including randomised controlled trials with at least 5 years of follow-up that treated intrabony defects ≥ 3 mm deep [F4]. The review included 17 randomised controlled trials published between 2004 and 2022, covering 501 defects, with follow-up of 5 to 20 years [F4]:

  • After ≥ 5 years of follow-up, guided tissue regeneration (GTR) achieved, relative to baseline, a clinical attachment level gain of 3.27 mm (95% CI 2.90 to 3.65) and a probing depth reduction of 4.04 mm (95% CI 3.69 to 4.38) [F4]
  • For regenerative surgery using biologics, bone grafting materials or both, the clinical attachment gain relative to baseline was 3.21 mm (95% CI 2.72 to 3.70) and the probing depth reduction 3.92 mm (95% CI 3.39 to 4.44) [F4]
  • Compared with open flap debridement (OFD), GTR gained 1.52 mm more clinical attachment (95% CI 0.06 to 3.10) and reduced probing depth by 0.89 mm more (95% CI 0.22 to 1.99), but neither result reached statistical significance (p = 0.06; p = 0.115) [F4]

The review's assessment of the quality of the evidence has to be read alongside this: of the 17 trials, 13 raised some concerns of bias and 4 were at high risk of bias; the certainty of evidence was low for clinical attachment and probing depth, and high for gingival recession [F4].

The conclusion is that long-term studies show that regenerative surgery (particularly GTR) brings significant improvement relative to baseline, but the evidence is not yet able to establish conclusively that regenerative surgery is superior to open flap debridement in the long term [F4].

Phase Three: supportive maintenance — the phase most consistently associated with long-term outcomes

"Treatment finished" is not the end point

Once periodontal treatment is complete, patients enter supportive periodontal care. The purpose of this phase is not to improve anything further, but to hold on to the gains already made.

And the data show a consistent association between how regular this phase is and long-term tooth retention. Note that this is an association, not causation: people who attend regularly and people who do not may already differ in oral hygiene habits, general health and access to care.

A 2015 systematic review and meta-analysis compared tooth loss between "regular attenders" and "irregular attenders", including studies with at least 5 years of follow-up [F2]. The review screened 710 articles and selected 8 that met the criteria [F2]:

  • The pooled risk ratio for tooth loss among regular attenders was 0.56 (95% CI 0.38 to 0.82) [F2]
  • The pooled risk difference was −0.05 (95% CI −0.08 to −0.01) [F2]
  • The weighted mean difference in tooth loss rate was −0.12 (95% CI −0.19 to −0.05) [F2]

The review also points out an important limitation: the definition of "regular attendance" is itself a variable that significantly influences the risk ratio result [F2]. That is to say, different studies define "regular" differently, and care is needed when comparing them. The review also mentions that unidentified variables causing data heterogeneity and affecting the risk of tooth loss may have been present [F2].

Falling short of the "ideal end point" is the norm

Here is a figure well worth knowing, because it changes what you expect of the result of treatment.

One systematic review and meta-analysis examined the proportion of patients meeting various "treatment end points" at the moment they completed active treatment and entered supportive periodontal care, along with subsequent tooth loss [F5]. The review included 15 studies, 12,884 patients and 323,111 teeth [F5].

At the moment of entering supportive care, the proportions achieving each end point were [F5]:

  • "Stable periodontitis" (probing pocket depth ≤ 4 mm, bleeding on probing < 10%, no bleeding on probing at 4 mm sites): just 1.35% [F5]
  • "Treatment end point" (no pockets > 4 mm with bleeding on probing, and no pockets ≥ 6 mm): 11.00% [F5]
  • "Controlled periodontitis" (≤ 4 sites with pockets ≥ 5 mm): 34.62% [F5]

As for tooth loss: among the 1,190 participants with 5 years of supportive care data, fewer than a third lost any teeth, and only 3.14% of teeth were lost in total [F5].

The factors statistically significantly associated with tooth loss were [F5]:

  • Failure to achieve "controlled periodontitis": relative risk 2.57 [F5]
  • Failure to achieve pocket depth < 5 mm: relative risk 1.59 [F5]
  • Failure to achieve pocket depth < 6 mm: relative risk 1.98 [F5]

The review's conclusion is very much worth quoting: the great majority of participants and teeth did not reach the proposed end points of periodontal stability; nevertheless, most periodontal patients retained most of their teeth over an average of 10 to 13 years of supportive care [F5].

Recurrence does happen, but within limits

Another systematic review and meta-analysis assessed disease recurrence during long-term supportive periodontal care [F6]. The review searched prospective clinical trials up to May 2020, retrieved 24 papers, and included 8 in the meta-analysis of tooth loss and 3 in the meta-analysis of disease progression / recurrence (clinical attachment loss ≥ 2 mm) [F6]:

  • Among patients in supportive care for 5 to 20 years, the prevalence of losing more than one tooth was 9.6% (95% CI 5% to 14%) [F6]
  • The prevalence of clinical attachment loss ≥ 2 mm at more than one site was 24.8% (95% CI 11% to 38%) [F6]
  • Six studies compared different ways of managing recurrence, and no one method was found to be clearly superior to the others [F6]

The review concluded that among patients with stage III/IV periodontitis, only a small proportion experience tooth loss during long-term supportive care (with a tendency to increase over time), and that regular supportive care appears important in reducing tooth loss [F6]. The review also records honestly that no data specifically on stage IV periodontitis were found [F6].

Data anchors — the verifiable figures for the three phases

PhaseData anchorHow to read it safelySource
Non-surgical therapy: timeline of effect29 randomised controlled trials; most of the pocket depth reduction and attachment gain occurs in the first 1 to 2 months, with further improvement afterwards [F1]Applies to systemically healthy patients; the basis for the timing of re-evaluation[F1]
Non-surgical therapy: shallow / deep pocketsBoth shallow (4–5 mm) and deep (≥ 6 mm) pockets showed small but clinically meaningful changes between 1–2, 3–4 and 5–6 months [F1]"Small but meaningful" is not the same as "no need to come back"[F1]
Judging surgery: defect morphology5 studies; two pointed in opposite directions for intrabony versus suprabony (3.2 vs 2.2 mm; 0.48 vs 0.72 mm) [F3]The review's conclusion is that "the evidence is contradictory", so no general rule can be built on it[F3]
Surgery: long-term regenerative outcomes17 RCTs, 501 defects, follow-up 5–20 years; relative to baseline, GTR gained 3.27 mm of attachment and reduced probing depth by 4.04 mm [F4]This is improvement "relative to baseline", not the gap against flap surgery[F4]
Surgery: regeneration vs flapGTR gained 1.52 mm more attachment and 0.89 mm more depth reduction than OFD, but neither reached statistical significance (p = 0.06; p = 0.115) [F4]Certainty of evidence for attachment and depth was low; 13 trials raised concerns of bias and 4 were at high risk[F4]
Maintenance: regularity of attendance2015, 8 studies; risk ratio for tooth loss among regular attenders 0.56 (95% CI 0.38–0.82) [F2]This is an association, not causation; the definition of "regular" itself significantly influences the result, so comparison across studies calls for caution[F2]
Maintenance: end point achievement15 studies, 12,884 people, 323,111 teeth; "stable periodontitis" achieved by just 1.35%, "treatment end point" 11.00%, "controlled periodontitis" 34.62% [F5]Falling short of the ideal end point is the norm and does not equate to treatment failure[F5]
Maintenance: long-term retentionOf the 1,190 with 5 years of data, fewer than a third lost teeth, with 3.14% of teeth lost in total; relative risk 2.57 for failure to achieve "controlled periodontitis" [F5]Most patients retain most of their teeth over an average of 10–13 years of supportive care[F5]
Maintenance: recurrence ratesSupportive care of 5–20 years; losing more than one tooth 9.6% (95% CI 5%–14%), attachment loss ≥ 2 mm at more than one site 24.8% (95% CI 11%–38%) [F6]Six studies comparing ways of managing recurrence did not show any to be better[F6]

Conclusion — each of the three phases has its task, and the longest of them is maintenance

To set out the role of the three phases plainly:

  • Non-surgical therapy is responsible for bringing inflammation down; most of the effect appears in the first 1 to 2 months, but where it finally settles is only known at re-evaluation [F1]
  • Surgery deals with sites that non-surgical therapy cannot resolve; as to whether it is needed, the literature cannot currently derive a general rule from defect morphology [F3], and in long-term outcomes the gap between regenerative surgery and open flap debridement does not reach statistical significance [F4]
  • Supportive maintenance is the phase most consistently associated with the long-term result — in the 2015 meta-analysis of 8 studies the risk ratio for tooth loss among regular attenders was 0.56 [F2]; that is an association rather than causation, and most patients retained most of their teeth over 10 to 13 years [F5]

There is one further adjustment of mindset worth taking away: falling short of the ideal end point set out in the textbooks is the norm for the great majority of people, and it does not equate to treatment failure [F5]. The success of periodontal treatment is ultimately judged by how many teeth you keep, and for how long.

If you are at some phase of periodontal treatment, or have completed treatment but have not been back for a long time, bring your previous periodontal charting to your appointment and discuss with your own dentist which phase you should currently be in and how long the interval to your next visit should be.

Risk factors: what to know before treatment

  • Population the evidence applies to: The review states that its conclusion on the timing of re-evaluation applies to systemically healthy patients with periodontitis; whether it applies equally to people with systemic disease is not answered in that abstract.[F1]
  • No general rule for deciding on surgery: Because the number of studies is limited and the data are heterogeneous, the evidence on how intrabony and suprabony defects differ in their response to non-surgical therapy is conflicting.[F3]
  • Long-term surgical outcomes remain uncertain: Long-term studies show that regenerative surgery produces significant improvement compared with baseline, but the evidence does not conclusively demonstrate that it is superior to open flap debridement in the long term; the certainty of evidence for clinical attachment and probing depth was rated low.[F4]
  • Recurrence can still occur during maintenance: During long-term supportive care, a small proportion of patients with stage III/IV periodontitis still experience tooth loss (with a tendency to increase over time), and clinical attachment loss was also recorded; studies comparing different ways of managing recurrence showed no clear evidence that any one method is superior.[F6]
  • Contraindications and evidence gaps: The abstracts of the reviews cited here do not provide a list of contraindications. One of them also records explicitly that no data specifically on stage IV periodontitis were found.[F6]

This section sets out the limitations and unsettled questions recorded in the research; it is not a prognosis for any individual. Whether your own sites need to move on to the surgical phase, and how long your recall interval should be, still has to be decided by a dentist on the basis of your re-evaluation.

Every clinical statement in this article is mapped line by line to its cited source (see the sources and evidence chain below). It has not been clinically reviewed by a licensed practitioner. This is health information, not individual advice; assessment by a clinician is required.

FAQ

How long after non-surgical therapy will I know whether it has worked?
According to the meta-analysis of 29 randomised controlled trials, most of the reduction in probing pocket depth and gain in clinical attachment level occurs in the first 1 to 2 months after subgingival instrumentation; but further improvement in pocket depth continues beyond these early time points [F1]. This is also the basis for the timing of periodontal re-evaluation — look too early and what you see is not the final result.
基本治療が終わってから、効果があったかどうかはどれくらいでわかりますか？ — 29 編のランダム化比較試験を組み入れたメタアナリシスによれば、プロービングポケット深さの減少と臨床的アタッチメントレベルの獲得は、その大部分が歯肉縁下インスツルメンテーション後の最初の 1 か月から 2 か月に起こります。ただしポケット深さの追加的な改善は、これらの早期の時点を過ぎたあとも続きます [F1]。これが歯周再評価の時期を決める根拠でもあります——早く見すぎると、見えているものは最終的な結果ではありません。
How long after non-surgical therapy will I know whether it has worked? — According to the meta-analysis of 29 randomised controlled trials, most of the reduction in probing pocket depth and gain in clinical attachment level occurs in the first 1 to 2 months after subgingival instrumentation; but further improvement in pocket depth continues beyond these early time points [F1]. This is also the basis for the timing of periodontal re-evaluation — look too early and what you see is not the final result.
Why do some people finish with non-surgical therapy while others still need an operation?
Part of the reason relates to the pattern of bone destruction. But it has to be said honestly: a systematic review comparing how intrabony and suprabony defects respond to non-surgical therapy concluded that **the evidence is contradictory**, with two of the 5 included studies pointing in opposite directions [F3]. So whether to move on to the surgical phase still has to be judged from the re-evaluation of your individual sites rather than by applying a general rule.
基本治療だけで良くなる人と、手術が必要になる人がいるのはなぜですか？ — 理由の一部は骨の破壊の形態に関係します。ただし率直に申し上げなければなりません。垂直性骨欠損と水平性骨欠損の非外科治療への反応を比較したシステマティックレビューの結論は**エビデンスが相互に矛盾している**というもので、組み入れられた 5 編のうち 2 編は互いに逆方向の結果を示していました [F3]。ですから外科の段階に進むかどうかは、一般則を当てはめるのではなく、あなたの個々の部位の再評価の結果によって判断する必要があります。
Why do some people finish with non-surgical therapy while others still need an operation? — Part of the reason relates to the pattern of bone destruction. But it has to be said honestly: a systematic review comparing how intrabony and suprabony defects respond to non-surgical therapy concluded that **the evidence is contradictory**, with two of the 5 included studies pointing in opposite directions [F3]. So whether to move on to the surgical phase still has to be judged from the re-evaluation of your individual sites rather than by applying a general rule.
Is periodontal regenerative surgery better than ordinary flap surgery?
According to the meta-analysis with 5 to 20 years of follow-up, guided tissue regeneration gained 1.52 mm more clinical attachment and reduced probing depth by 0.89 mm more than open flap debridement, but **neither reached statistical significance (p = 0.06; p = 0.115)** [F4]. The review's conclusion is that the evidence is not yet able to establish conclusively that regenerative surgery is superior to open flap debridement in the long term [F4]. Both show significant improvement relative to baseline [F4].
歯周組織再生療法は、通常のフラップ手術より優れているのでしょうか？ — 5 年から 20 年追跡したメタアナリシスによれば、歯周組織誘導再生法は歯肉剥離掻爬術と比べて、臨床的アタッチメントの獲得が 1.52 mm 多く、プロービング深さの減少が 0.89 mm 多いものの、**いずれも統計学的有意には達していません（p = 0.06；p = 0.115）** [F4]。このレビューの結論は、エビデンスは再生療法が長期的に歯肉剥離掻爬術より優れていることを確実には証明できていない、というものです [F4]。両者ともベースラインと比べれば有意な改善があります [F4]。
Is periodontal regenerative surgery better than ordinary flap surgery? — According to the meta-analysis with 5 to 20 years of follow-up, guided tissue regeneration gained 1.52 mm more clinical attachment and reduced probing depth by 0.89 mm more than open flap debridement, but **neither reached statistical significance (p = 0.06; p = 0.115)** [F4]. The review's conclusion is that the evidence is not yet able to establish conclusively that regenerative surgery is superior to open flap debridement in the long term [F4]. Both show significant improvement relative to baseline [F4].
Once treatment is over, do I really have to keep coming back?
How regularly you attend is consistently associated with long-term tooth retention: the 2015 meta-analysis of 8 studies showed a risk ratio for tooth loss among regular attenders of 0.56 (95% CI 0.38 to 0.82) [F2]; the review also records that unidentified variables affecting the risk of tooth loss may have been present, so this is an association rather than causation [F2]. Another review also notes that regular supportive care appears important in reducing tooth loss [F6]. The interval between visits is for your dentist to set according to your level of risk.
治療が終わったあとも、ずっと通い続けなければならないのでしょうか？ — 受診の定期性は長期的な歯の保存と一貫した関連があります。2015 年の 8 編の研究を組み入れたメタアナリシスでは、定期受診群の歯の喪失リスク比は 0.56（95% CI 0.38 から 0.82）と示されています [F2]。このレビューは同時に、歯の喪失リスクに影響する未同定の変数が存在した可能性も記録しており、したがってこれは因果ではなく関連です [F2]。別のレビューも、定期的なサポーティブケアが歯の喪失を減らすうえで重要と考えられると指摘しています [F6]。受診の間隔は、歯科医師があなたのリスクの程度に応じて決めるものです。
Once treatment is over, do I really have to keep coming back? — How regularly you attend is consistently associated with long-term tooth retention: the 2015 meta-analysis of 8 studies showed a risk ratio for tooth loss among regular attenders of 0.56 (95% CI 0.38 to 0.82) [F2]; the review also records that unidentified variables affecting the risk of tooth loss may have been present, so this is an association rather than causation [F2]. Another review also notes that regular supportive care appears important in reducing tooth loss [F6]. The interval between visits is for your dentist to set according to your level of risk.
My pockets have not disappeared completely — has the treatment failed?
No. A systematic review showed that at the moment of entering supportive care, only 1.35% of patients met the strict definition of "stable periodontitis", 11.00% reached the "treatment end point" and 34.62% reached "controlled periodontitis" [F5]. But the same paper also showed that most periodontal patients retained most of their teeth over an average of 10 to 13 years of supportive care, with only 3.14% of teeth lost in total [F5].
ポケットが完全になくならなかったのですが、治療は失敗だったのでしょうか？ — そうではありません。システマティックレビューによれば、サポーティブケアに入った時点で「安定した歯周炎」の厳密な定義に到達していた患者は 1.35% にすぎず、「治療のエンドポイント」に到達したのは 11.00%、「コントロールされた歯周炎」に到達したのは 34.62% でした [F5]。しかし同じレビューはこうも示しています。多くの歯周病患者は平均 10 年から 13 年のサポーティブケアの期間を通じて歯の大部分を保存しており、失われた歯は全体でわずか 3.14% でした [F5]。
My pockets have not disappeared completely — has the treatment failed? — No. A systematic review showed that at the moment of entering supportive care, only 1.35% of patients met the strict definition of "stable periodontitis", 11.00% reached the "treatment end point" and 34.62% reached "controlled periodontitis" [F5]. But the same paper also showed that most periodontal patients retained most of their teeth over an average of 10 to 13 years of supportive care, with only 3.14% of teeth lost in total [F5].
Once periodontal disease has been treated, can it come back?
To a certain extent, yes. Among patients in supportive care for 5 to 20 years, the prevalence of losing more than one tooth was 9.6% (95% CI 5% to 14%), and the prevalence of clinical attachment loss ≥ 2 mm at more than one site was 24.8% (95% CI 11% to 38%) [F6]. The review also notes that six studies comparing different ways of managing recurrence did not show any method to be clearly better [F6].
歯周病は治ったあと、再発することはありますか？ — 一定の割合で起こります。サポーティブケアを 5 年から 20 年受けた患者において、複数歯を失った患者の割合は 9.6%（95% CI 5% から 14%）、複数部位で臨床的アタッチメントロス ≥ 2 mm が生じた患者の割合は 24.8%（95% CI 11% から 38%）でした [F6]。このレビューはまた、再発への異なる対応方法を比較した六編の研究では、どの方法が明らかに優れているかは示されなかったとも指摘しています [F6]。
Once periodontal disease has been treated, can it come back? — To a certain extent, yes. Among patients in supportive care for 5 to 20 years, the prevalence of losing more than one tooth was 9.6% (95% CI 5% to 14%), and the prevalence of clinical attachment loss ≥ 2 mm at more than one site was 24.8% (95% CI 11% to 38%) [F6]. The review also notes that six studies comparing different ways of managing recurrence did not show any method to be clearly better [F6].

Medical notice　This article is provided for health education and medical information purposes. It is not a solicitation for medical services and does not constitute diagnosis or treatment advice. Actual treatment methods and outcomes vary between individuals and require evaluation by a dentist; every treatment has its own indications, limitations and possible risks. If you have related symptoms or treatment needs, please book a consultation for evaluation by a dentist.

Source anchors

Cite this article

Lucy・《The Three Phases of Periodontal Treatment: Non-Surgical Therapy, Surgery and Supportive Maintenance — What Each One Is Solving》・IDAEO 知識庫・2026-07-20・https://km.idaeo.ai/post/dental/periodontal-therapy-three-stages

Updated 2026-08-19

Related articles

更新 2026-08-19T13:24:34.106Z · server-rendered · four-language · IDAEO 知識庫