Recall sessions are an integral part of supportive periodontal therapy. The aim of the current article is to review the existing evidence to support if and to what extent a predefined frequency of periodontal recall sessions ensures periodontal health and stability. Factors that potentially affect the time interval for recall are described. Moreover, original data on the relevance of residual diseased sites (ie, bleeding pockets) at patient level to predict the progression of periodontitis are presented. Overall, wide heterogeneity was found in the published literature with regards to the proposed supportive periodontal therapy recall frequency once active periodontal therapy has been completed. Available data clearly show that a primary and secondary preventive regimen based on routine supportive periodontal therapy is beneficial to preserve a periodontally healthy dentition and prevent tooth loss. However, convincing evidence regarding the appropriateness, risk‐benefit, and cost‐effectiveness of different recall intervals is currently scarce. In patients affected by moderate to advanced periodontitis, a supportive periodontal therapy protocol based on a 2‐4 month recall interval appears reasonable. Limited data suggest that the amount/proportion of residual diseased sites (intended as pockets or bleeding pockets) and risk assessment tools may be of value in establishing the appropriate recall frequency.

中文翻译：

---

证据支持哪个牙周召回间隔？

召回会议是支持性牙周治疗不可或缺的一部分。本文的目的是回顾现有证据，以支持预先确定的牙周召回频率是否以及在何种程度上确保牙周健康和稳定。描述了可能影响召回时间间隔的因素。此外，还提供了有关在患者水平上残留的患病部位（即出血袋）的相关性以预测牙周炎进展的原始数据。总体而言，一旦完成了积极的牙周治疗，就提议的支持性牙周治疗的召回频率，已发表的文献中发现了广泛的异质性。现有数据清楚地表明，基于常规支持性牙周治疗的一级和二级预防方案有利于保持牙周健康的牙列并防止牙齿脱落。但是，目前缺乏关于不同召回间隔的适当性，风险收益和成本效益的令人信服的证据。对于受中度至晚期牙周炎影响的患者，以2-4个月的召回间隔为基础的支持性牙周治疗方案似乎是合理的。有限的数据表明，残留疾病部位（意为口袋或出血口袋）的数量/比例和风险评估工具可能对确定适当的召回频率很有价值。目前还缺乏不同召回间隔的成本效益。对于受中度至晚期牙周炎影响的患者，以2-4个月的召回间隔为基础的支持性牙周治疗方案似乎是合理的。有限的数据表明，残留疾病部位（意为口袋或出血口袋）的数量/比例和风险评估工具在确定适当的召回频率时可能是有价值的。目前还缺乏不同召回间隔的成本效益。对于受中度至晚期牙周炎影响的患者，以2-4个月的召回间隔为基础的支持性牙周治疗方案看来是合理的。有限的数据表明，残留疾病部位（意为口袋或出血口袋）的数量/比例和风险评估工具在确定适当的召回频率时可能是有价值的。